ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2024
Involving Knowledge Users in Health Services Research: Collective Reflections and Learning From a National Evaluation of Recurrent Miscarriage Services.
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. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionInvolving knowledge users in research can facilitate the translation of evidence into policy and practice. How to best involve and support various types of knowledge users, including patient and public involvement contributors, in research is an identified knowledge gap. We conducted a national evaluation of recurrent miscarriage care supported by a Research Advisory Group (convened in March 2020) comprising a range of knowledge users, including parent advocates and people involved in the management/provision of services. The Group met virtually nine times, and actively collaborated beyond this on various research activities across the project. In this paper, we share insights from our collective evaluation of these involvement efforts.
methodsWe drew on records kept over the timespan of the project to describe involvement activities and experiences. Advisory Group members participated in an electronic survey to assess their involvement experiences at two time points (February 2021 and May 2022); we analysed the results descriptively. In May 2022, we hosted a virtual World Café, comprising the Research Team and Advisory Group, to explore what worked well and what could have been improved regarding involvement activities within the project; we analysed this data thematically.
resultsResponses to both rounds of the survey were positive, with people reporting: their ability to discuss research issues, contribute to the research, express their own views; feeling valued as a partner; that they could bring their own ideas and values to the research; perceived potential to gain status, expertise, or credibility because of their involvement. Themes constructed from the Word Café discussions highlighted that structural and relational spaces shaped the accessibility and experience of involvement.
conclusionMembers reported a positive and rewarding experience with a visible impact on the research process but highlighted issues with the feasibility and scope of the research protocol and challenges to autonomous involvement in aspects reliant on clinical expertise. Our analysis reinforces that the relational nature of involvement takes precedence over instrumental aspects or techniques. Realistic study protocols that allow time and space for the evolving nature of research with knowledge users, and institutional and financial support to facilitate meaningful involvement, are needed. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People with lived experience of recurrent miscarriage/pregnancy loss were involved in this evaluation-as members of the RE:CURRENT Research Advisory Group, contributing to the methodology, evaluation activities, interpretation and reporting of findings and insights.
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.