ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2024
Using action research and a community-academic partnership to understand clinical trial participation: a patient-centered perspective.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From engagement to evidence: a scoping review of qualitative and quantitative measures of adult patient engagement in research.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical trials that are patient-centered appear to be more successful (e.g., clinical outcomes, improved communication, mutual empowerment, changed attitudes), thus, action research may be a field of importance. The current study explores the Formation and Execution of Activities phases of a community-academic partnership (CAP).
methodsMembers consisted of industry stakeholders, a healthcare/academic institution, and patients/families with lived experiences as cancer survivors and/or caregivers. Retrospectively, CAP members described the facilitating and/or hindering factors present in the partnership development. A document review process was used. Field notes from three CAP meetings, which focused on understanding clinical trial participation, were analyzed using a thematic approach.
resultsSeven facilitating and three hindering factors were present. Interpersonal (vs. operational) processes were referenced as influential facilitating factors more often. Themes that emerged included 'trials as a treatment option', 'leaving a legacy', and 'timing is critical.'
conclusionThis study provides a patient-centered perspective on barriers/challenges of clinical trial participation and how to improve future perceptions.
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.