ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2024
Evaluating qualitative data analysis workshops from the perspective of public contributors.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bridging Lived and Expert Experience: A Qualitative Study Exploring Lived-Experience Experts' and Researchers' Experiences of Public Engagement in Cancer Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Embedding Consumer-Led Research in a Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Embedding Patient and Public Engagement in a Cancer Project: Protocol for a Qualitative Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this project is to evaluate public contributors' experiences of their involvement in qualitative data analysis workshops during an on-going research project titled 'Personalised Primary care for Patients with Multiple long-term conditions'.
methodsFour qualitative data analysis workshops were designed and conducted between August and December 2023. We used the Cube evaluation framework (henceforth referred to as the Cube) to evaluate the workshops. The Cube suggests four domains for successful PPI (voice, agenda, change, contribute).Within Workshops One, Two and Three public contributors had to login to an account to access the Cube; this was modified in Workshop Four following feedback from public contributors.
findingsAcross the four workshops the Cube was completed 11 times. Across all four workshops, public contributors thought that their voice was heard, that there were diverse ways to contribute and that they led the agenda. Public contributors thought that researchers responded to their questions and issues, when necessary.
conclusionThis evaluation has shown that public contributors can gain new skills and lead qualitative data analysis discussions.
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.