Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39632115›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Integration of patient-oriented research principles in health institutions: a scoping review protocol.

Marie-Eve Poitras, Marie-Dominique Poirier, Rachael Bosma, Vanessa T Vaillancourt, Alèxe Deom Tardif, Cloé Beaulieu, Marie-Hélène Baron, Daniel-Constantin Manolescu, Annie LeBlanc

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Marie-Eve PoitrasDepartment of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada Marie-Eve.Poitras@USherbrooke.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-3315-0190
Marie-Dominique PoirierDepartment of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada.
Rachael BosmaUniversity of Toronto Faculty of Dentistry, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Vanessa T VaillancourtDepartment of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada.
Alèxe Deom TardifDepartment of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada.ORCID 0009-0009-6573-2302
Cloé BeaulieuDepartment of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada.
Marie-Hélène BaronDepartment of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada.
Daniel-Constantin ManolescuDepartment of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada.
Annie LeBlancDepartment of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Université Laval Faculté de Médecine, Ville de Québec, Québec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5377-8102

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn 2011, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research launched a Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (POR) for healthcare and academic institutions to increase patient participation in health research. POR considers patients and caregivers as partners with scientific investigators, healthcare professionals and administrative decision-makers. As POR becomes a standard worldwide, the how-to, practical aspects of POR integration in healthcare institutions remain uncharted territory. A more accurate POR range in health research would improve healthcare systems. Yet the availability of standardised accreditation has not been achieved. The research question for this scoping review arose from a patient-partner in our team who experienced organisational challenges in healthcare institutions related to her role. It will overview and map the available evidence of organisational structures and changes that enable the integration of POR within healthcare institutions globally. This should serve our future projects to propose standardised pan-Canadian POR accreditation protocols. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Following Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methods and predetermined eligibility, we will perform a qualitative scoping review, searching for healthcare institution's organisational structures and changes in Patient-Oriented Research (POR)-related accreditation, criteria and procedures in academic peer-reviewed databases and grey literature. The scoping review's steps are as follows: (1) framing the research question; (2) targeting the documentation; (3) selecting documents by two reviewers; (4) charting/extracting data; (5) summarising and reporting the results. The search strategy will be applied to three databases for academic literature, and a search for grey literature will be performed. Emergent documents from academic studies or grey literature describing the organisational structure or changes to integrate POR within healthcare institutions, from 2012 to the present and in English or French, will be included. All articles will be analysed by two reviewers individually for inclusion. Extracted quantitative and qualitative data will describe eligible studies and POR-relevant elements. Tables mapping the organisational structures will be presented. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The methodology consists of exploring published evidence; therefore, ethics approval is not required. Patient-partners will provide feedback on findings and strategies for disseminating the results. Dissemination activities will include peer-reviewed publication, co-creation of teaching seminars and academic presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The review was registered prospectively with Open Science Framework (OSF). Available: https://osf.io/4t6ud.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationAccreditationCanadaHealth FacilitiesHumansResearch DesignScoping Reviews as TopicOrganisational developmentPatient-Centred CarePatient ParticipationProtocols & guidelines

Identifiers

PMID39632115
PMCPMC11624834

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.