Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38881096›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2024

Establishing a standing patient advisory board in family practice research: A qualitative evaluation from patients' and researchers' perspectives.

Jennifer Engler, Fabian Engler, Meike Gerber, Franziska Brosse, Karen Voigt, Karola Mergenthal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Promoting Patient Safety Through Patient Engagement at the Organisational Level: A Delphi-Based Needs Assessment Among Patient and Family Advisory Councils.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Establishing a standing patient advisory board in family practice research: A qualitative evaluation from patients' and researchers' perspectives.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    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.

Jennifer EnglerInstitute of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine at Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6030-1513
Fabian EnglerInstitute of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine at Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany.
Meike GerberInstitute of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine at Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany.ORCID 0009-0007-6620-3782
Franziska BrosseDepartment of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Medical Clinic III, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Karen VoigtDepartment of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Medical Clinic III, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2246-7368
Karola MergenthalInstitute of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine at Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0534-9389

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 01GK1906A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPatient and public involvement is vital for high-quality research. Integrating patients' and providers' perspectives early in research enhances the feasibility and relevance of study results. Within our family practice-based research network ForN, we established a standing patient advisory board (PAB) to include patients with diverse conditions and experiences. In this paper, we aim to describe the establishment and functioning of a standing PAB in family medicine research from patients' and researchers' perspectives.

methodsAfter each PAB meeting, patients and researchers were asked to name anonymously positive and challenging moments in a feedback form with open questions. Researchers were also asked to reflect on how they implemented the discussion content in their research projects. The responses from both groups were transferred to MAXQDA 2018 and analyzed separately using thematic analysis.

resultsWe analyzed 40 feedback forms from patients and 14 feedback forms from researchers. The dominant theme in the patients' feedback was 'exchange': They positively emphasized the 'exciting and open discussions' and the exchange of perspectives with one another and researchers. The clarity of the researchers' presentations and the research topics were appreciated. Researchers also positively highlighted the open atmosphere of the discussions. Presenting their research to the PAB helped most researchers reflect on their research topics from patients' perspectives and implement changes. However, researchers also mentioned several barriers to the implementation of PAB members' feedback.

conclusionThe establishment of a standing PAB in family practice research is feasible and productive both from patients' and researchers' perspectives. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study reports the evaluation of the establishment of a standing PAB in family practice research. Board members are involved in the design of studies, the co-production of interventions and information material, and the interpretation of data.

Indexed as

Advisory CommitteesFamily PracticeQualitative ResearchResearch PersonnelAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Participationcitizen sciencefamily practicepatient empowermentstakeholder participation

Identifiers

PMID38881096
PMCPMC11180710

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.