Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38977365›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2024

Patient engagement in a Canadian health research funding institute: implementation and impact.

Dawn P Richards, Rosie Twomey, Trudy Flynn, Linda Hunter, Eunice Lui, Allan Stordy, Christine Thomas, Karim Khan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors.

Dawn P RichardsCanadian Institutes of Health Research Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada dawn.p.richards@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-1151-0826
Rosie TwomeyCanadian Institutes of Health Research Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Trudy FlynnCanadian Institutes of Health Research Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Linda HunterCanadian Institutes of Health Research Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Eunice LuiCanadian Institutes of Health Research Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Allan StordyCanadian Institutes of Health Research Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Christine ThomasCanadian Institutes of Health Research Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Karim KhanCanadian Institutes of Health Research Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient engagement (PE) or involvement in research is when patient partners are integrated onto teams and initiatives (not participants in research). A number of health research funding organisations have PE frameworks or rubrics but we are unaware of them applying and reporting on their own internal PE efforts. We describe our work at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research's Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis (CIHR IMHA) to implement, evaluate and understand the impact of its internal PE strategy.

methodsA co-production model was used involving patient partners, a PE specialist and staff from IMHA. A logic model was co-developed to guide implementing and evaluating IMHA's PE strategy. Some of evaluating the PE strategy and understanding its impact was a collaboration between the Public and Patient Engagement Collaborative (McMaster University) and IMHA.

resultsIMHA convened a PE Research Ambassador (PERA) group which co-led this work with the support of a PE specialist. In doing so, PERA had a number of meetings since 2020, set its own priorities and co-produced a number of outputs (video, publications, webinars, blog and modules called the How-to Guide for PE in Research). This work to evaluate and measure impacts of IMHA's PE strategy revealed positive results, for example, on PERA members, Institute Advisory Board members and staff, as well as beyond the institute based on uptake and use of the modules. Areas for improvement are mainly related to increasing the diversity of PERA and to improving accessibility of the PE outputs (more languages and formats).

conclusionsImplementing a PE strategy within CIHR IMHA resulted in several PE activities and outputs with impacts within and beyond the institute. We provide templates and outputs related to this work that may inform the efforts of other health research funding organisations. We encourage health research funders to move beyond encouraging or requiring PE in funded projects to fully 'walk the talk' of PE by implementing and evaluating their own PE strategies.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationAcademies and InstitutesBiomedical ResearchCanadaHumansCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchCommunity ParticipationImplementation SciencePatient Participation

Identifiers

PMID38977365
PMCPMC11256033

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.