ArticleHealthcare policy = Politiques de sante2024
Recruiting for Engagement in Health Policy.
Article in Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reducing health and cancer disparities: an environmental scan of three promising health care access interventions in Alberta, Canada.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Operationalising Patient Engagement Through the Alberta Cancer Diagnosis Initiative: Recruitment Strategies for Diverse Populations in Health System Improvement.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Trends in Government-Initiated Public Engagement in Canadian Health Policy From 2000 to 2021.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2024Article
- Public Engagement in Canadian Health Policy: Looking Back, Taking Stock and Charting the Future.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Who participates in public and patient engagement processes, and in what capacity they participate, matters. The strategies employed to recruit participants shape the outcomes and legitimacy of engagement processes. We explore these issues through a case study of workshop recruitment. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study drawing on literature about existing theories of engagement, and integrated findings from the research team's own public engagement workshop in September 2022. We sought to align theoretical frameworks with practical approaches to recruiting for engagement. Results: There are inherent trade-offs in recruitment methods. While the theory of recruitment is valuable, practical implementation is complex and highly context-dependent. Engaging existing partners and fostering relationships beyond specific events is crucial. Hybrid workshops and low-barrier honoraria promote participation; however, decisions about location and time create barriers. Finally, balancing trusting relationships with critical perspectives can create tension. Discussion: Recruitment is foundational for the engagement process, and requires flexibility, responsiveness and a realistic understanding of barriers. Our study suggests that there is no universal formula for ideal participant makeup or event format. Meaningful engagement requires ongoing dialogue and constant adjustment based on practice. Policy makers can use these insights to align recruitment and engagement strategies with their goals in order to move beyond quick, technocratic fixes.
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.