ReviewBMJ open2023
Integrating participants as partners in research governance and operations: an approach from the
Review in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sisters impacting the SISTER diabetes study: partnering with a Patient Advisory Group across the research continuum.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Leveraging the All of Us research program to advance heart, lung, blood, and sleep research.American journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- A call to action to scale up research and clinical genomic data sharing.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2025Review
- Informatics innovation to provide return of value to participant communities in the All of Us Research Program.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- Promising Practices for Inclusive Precision Medicine Research and the Contribution to Public and Population Health.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 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
8 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesDuring the last two decades, researchers and funders increasingly recognised the value of engaging patients and communities in research. Despite progress, community engagement remains challenging. There are few examples of successful participant engagement in governance of large-scale research programmes. Here we describe efforts to engage participants as partners in new governance roles in the
resultsOver a 3-year period, all items on the survey increased (higher readiness). Of the 291 respondents to the 2021 survey, respondents most frequently agreed that participant perspectives are essential (100%), participants understand enough to contribute meaningfully (94%) and participants should be involved in setting goals (96%). Respondents least frequently agreed that participants should have an equal voice in Working Groups (75%), Steering Committee (69%) and Executive Committee (63%).
conclusionIn conclusion, participants can be effectively integrated into large-scale research governance, which is associated with increased researcher readiness for engagement.
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.