ArticleGesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany))2024
[Research partners in health services research: need, acceptance and feasibility of preparatory trainings].
Article in Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Patient participation in health research in Germany : Current status and future prospects].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026Article
- [A qualitative interview study to streamline integration of patient participation in research].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of this online survey was to assess the need, acceptance and practical feasibility of a training program for research partners in health services research by patients and the public.
methodIn January 2023, we sent the survey to patient associations and groups nationwide via Patient Advisory Board members of the German Network for Health Services Research (DNVF). The survey included both closed and open questions. The research team analysed the information provided by the participants (n=125) descriptively and used content analysis according to Kuckartz and Rädiker (2022).
resultsThe majority (90.4%) of respondents considered patient and the public involvement in the planning and implementation of scientific studies to be very or extremely important. 41.5% (17.9%) of respondents indicated that more than 10% (more than 25%) of patients would be willing to participate in free training and be available as research partners. More than three-quarters (76.8%) of respondents agreed that training was very or extremely important. Participants preferred written information (57.3%), short online training (56.5%) and short digital information sessions (53.2%). Frequently cited barriers to delivering training include travel costs (60%), time (53.3%) and the need for extensive prior information (48.3%). Participants' suggestions for successful training implementation included comprehensibility of the training program and its organisation (location, duration and format).
conclusionIn addition to the high training needs of research partners, the results also reveal some obstacles. A compact, comprehensible and digital information event with written information material increases acceptance. Researchers should take these results into account when designing and implementing training programs.
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.