Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38200610›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2024

Research collaboration with older people as a matter of scientific quality and ethics: a focus group study with researchers in ageing and health.

Synneve Dahlin-Ivanoff, Isak Berge, Emmelie Barenfeld, Maria Haak, Qarin Lood

Abstract 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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Synneve Dahlin-IvanoffInstitute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Department of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. synneve.dahlin-ivanoff@gu.se.
Isak BergeCentre for Ageing and Health - AgeCap, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Emmelie BarenfeldCentre for Ageing and Health - AgeCap, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Maria HaakResearch Platform for Collaboration for Health, Faculty of Health Science, Kristianstad University, Kristianstad, Sweden.
Qarin LoodCentre for Ageing and Health - AgeCap, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Funding

Forskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd AgeCap 2013-2300, 2013-2496, 2016-07097 and 2018-00471Forskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd UserAge 2016-17090
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSociety is placing increasing demands on collaboration with actors outside the academia to be involved in the research process, and the responsibility for turning this into reality lies with the researchers. As research collaboration is a way to increase the societal relevance of research and since older people have the right to be actively involved in research that concerns them, this study is addressed to researchers who work with and for older people. The purpose of this article is to explore researchers' experiences of research collaboration with the heterogeneous group of older people, from healthy to frail.

methodsThe focus group method was applied based on a qualitative approach that is based on a social constructivist research tradition. It differs from other qualitative methods, such as interviews, in that it encourages interaction between research participants and contributes to shedding light on a collective understanding of the world. A total of 14 researchers participated in four focus groups (three to five participants/group).

resultsThe results provided support for the overall theme: "Good scientific quality and ethics are balanced against the needs and abilities of older people". This means a balance between the researcher and the older people collaborating with them to receive the best possible scientific quality. This is highlighted in the core category "Positioning for research collaboration" with the subcategories "Involvement or not", "Traditional or innovative thinking" and "Selectivity or representativeness", and the core category "Research collaboration - an ethical issue of power" with the subcategories "Research collaboration a risk for freedom of research", "Research collaboration a risk of abuse of power" and "Discriminatory academic power structures create ethical issues".

conclusionsAddressing the balancing act of collaborating with older people in research, the findings contribute with an understanding of the importance of researchers' awareness of social and academic structures to minimise the risk of epistemic injustices in research on ageing and health. We want to highlight the researchers' voice and clarify the role that researchers have in terms of the opportunities for older people to become part of the collective understanding of ageing and health and make their voices heard.

Identifiers

PMID38200610
PMCPMC10782619

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.