ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2023
Working together in health research: a mixed-methods patient engagement evaluation.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- "It gives me confidence and value": evaluating All_Ears@UoS patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group three years on.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Co-Production in Adolescent Health Research: A Mixed Methods Study From Born in Bradford.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Questions for more insightful and useful analyses of barriers and facilitators to public involvement and engagement in health research: a critical narrative review.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Review
- Building meaningful partnerships: engaging and co-developing a patient advisory council to inform the implementation of person-centred quality indicators in Alberta primary care.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Why involvement remains fragile: a qualitative comparison of principal investigators' and patient organisations' perspectives in Italy.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Development of a Patient and Carer Advisory Board to Co-Design Health Services Research for the Quality of Care of People With Dementia.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Evaluation Tools for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Health Research: A Scoping Review.The patient · 2026Article
- From engagement to evidence: a scoping review of qualitative and quantitative measures of adult patient engagement in research.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
- Health researchers' experience collaborating with patient partners: a qualitative study.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Patient engagement strategies in digital health interventions for cancer survivors: A scoping review.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- [A qualitative interview study to streamline integration of patient participation in research].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2025Article
- Using Human-Centred Design to Codesign Patient Engagement Tools With a Patient Advisory Council: Successes and Challenges.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Digital Information Exchange Between the Public and Researchers in Health Studies: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Establishment of a Public and Patient Involvement and Engagement Group to Support Clinical Trials in Pakistan: Protocol for a Mixed-Methods Study.Wellcome open research · 2025Article
- Investigating the Best Practices for Engagement in Remote Participatory Design: Mixed Methods Analysis of 4 Remote Studies With Family Caregivers.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Through Their Eyes: Using Photovoice to Capture the Capacity-Building Journey of Long Covid Patient Experts.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Patient engagement in a Canadian health research funding institute: implementation and impact.BMJ open · 2024Review
- Re-Purposing the Ordering of Routine Laboratory Tests in Hospitalized Medical Patients (RePORT): protocol for a multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial to evaluate the impact of a multicomponent intervention bundle to reduce laboratory test over-utilization.Implementation science : IS · 2024Article
- Article
- Rationalizing the Influence of Co-Design on Distress, Clinical Decision-Making and Disease Self-Management of Cancer Patients-as-Partners: A Quasi-Experimental Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn patient-oriented research (POR), patients contribute their valuable knowledge and lived-experiences to work together as active research partners at all stages of the health research cycle. However, research looking to understand how patient research partners (PRPs) and researchers work together in meaningful and collaborative ways remains limited. This study aims to evaluate patient engagement with the RePORT Patient Advisory Council (PAC) and to identify barriers and facilitators to meaningful patient engagement encountered within research partnerships involving patient research partners and researchers.
methodsThe RePORT PAC members included nine PRPs and nine researchers (clinician-researchers, research staff, patient engagement experts) from both Alberta and British Columbia. All members were contacted and invited to complete an anonymous online survey (Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation (PPEET) tool) at two different project times points. The PAC was invited for a semi-structured interview to gain in-depth understanding of their experiences working together. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and the data was thematically analyzed with the support of a qualitative analysis software, NVivo.
resultsA total of nine PRPs (100%) and three researchers (33%) participated in the baseline survey in February 2022 while six PRPs (67%) responded and three researchers (33%) completed the follow up survey in May 2022. For the semi-structured interviews, nine PRPs (100%) and six researchers (67%) participated. According to the survey results, PAC members agreed that the supports (e. g. training, compensation) needed to contribute to the project were available throughout the project. The survey responses also showed that most members of the PAC felt their opinions and views were heard. Responses to the survey regarding diversity within the PAC were mixed. There were many suggestions for improving diversity and collaboration provided by PAC members during the semi-structured interviews. PAC members mentioned that PAC PRPs informed the co-development of research materials such as recruitment posters and interview guides for the RePORT study.
conclusionsThrough fostering a collaborative environment, we can engage a diverse group of people to work together meaningfully in health research. We have identified what works well, and areas for improvement within our research partnership involving PRPs and researchers as well as recommendations for POR projects more broadly, going forward.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.