Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38172939›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2024

Recommendations for successful involvement of patient partners in complex intervention research: a collaborative learning process.

Pernille Christiansen Skovlund, Jeanette Finderup, Sanne Aabo, Flemming Jensen, Henning Søndergaard, Lotte Ørneborg Rodkjær

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Pernille Christiansen Skovlund *Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 99, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark. pernskov@rm.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5310-651X
Jeanette Finderup *Research Centre for Patient Involvement, Aarhus University and Central Denmark Region, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2646-0227
Sanne AaboResearch Centre for Patient Involvement, Aarhus University and Central Denmark Region, Aarhus, Denmark.
Flemming JensenResearch Centre for Patient Involvement, Aarhus University and Central Denmark Region, Aarhus, Denmark.
Henning SøndergaardResearch Centre for Patient Involvement, Aarhus University and Central Denmark Region, Aarhus, Denmark.
Lotte Ørneborg RodkjærResearch Centre for Patient Involvement, Aarhus University and Central Denmark Region, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1570-2120
Aarhus University · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient and public involvement in health-related research is a new discipline in Denmark. In 2021, a national conference titled 'Patient and Public Involvement in Complex Intervention Research' provided a forum for discussion between patient partners, researchers and clinicians on involving patients as partners in complex intervention research.

methodsWe aimed to describe specific challenges to and initiatives for patient partner involvement in order to develop recommendations for creating successful partnerships in complex intervention research. Through a collaborative learning process, 140 researchers identified the most important challenges for them in patient partner involvement and potential initiatives to improve such involvement. At a subsequent workshop, four patient partners identified the challenges and initiatives from their perspective as patient partners. They also gave feedback on the challenges and initiatives suggested by the researchers and helped shape three recommendations for practice. Three of the patient partners were involved in writing this paper.

resultsThe five most important challenges identified by researchers were time, recruitment, ethics, power and inequality. Between four and seven initiatives to overcome these challenges were suggested. The three most important challenges identified by patient partners were communication, when you get information that is hard to handle and recruitment. They suggested three to four initiatives for improvement. Patient partners confirmed the importance of all the researcher identified challenges when presented with them, they also provided additional comments on the researchers' initiatives. This led to the formation of recommendations for involving patient partners.

conclusionsA collaborative learning process was shown to be a suitable method for patient partner involvement. Consistency was seen between the challenges and initiatives identified by researchers and patient partners. Based on these observations, three recommendations were developed: (1) create specific programmes that aim to involve all kind of patients (including but limited to vulnerable patients) as patient partners, (2) produce ethical guidelines for the involvement of patient partners, and (3) develop a national strategy for patient partner involvement. To build on these recommendations, a joint workshop with both researchers and patient partners is needed.

Indexed as

ChallengesCollaborative learning processInitiativesPatient partnersRecommendationsWorkshops

Identifiers

PMID38172939
PMCPMC10765637
OpenAlexW4390571519

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.