ArticleTrauma surgery & acute care open2024
Community of trauma care partnering with stakeholders to improve injury outcomes: survey analysis and panel development.
Article in Trauma surgery & acute care open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Innovation in community consultation for exception from informed consent studies: an effort to extend reach and improve impact.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2026Article
- Injury Research Engagement Project (I-REP) panel of patients and caregivers: results of the inaugural first year.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2026Article
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
Background: In June 2021, the Injury Research Engagement Project (I-REP) was established. In 2022, we preformed focus group analysis with patients/caregiver and researchers that resulted in themes in preferences, motivations, and best practices to increase participation in trauma research. The importance of trust and well-established relationships was common across all groups. In this study, we aimed to further evaluate preferences regarding research procedures and outcomes, and develop a panel for sustained patient engagement. Methods: We performed a multiphase, mixed methods study to elicit trauma stakeholders' perspectives regarding aspects of research. Previously published phase 1 involved focus group analysis. Phase 2 vignette-based surveys and phase 3 panel formation are described here. One survey was completed by patients/caregivers, and the second by trauma researchers. We compared the responses using independent t-tests. This was followed by a webinar and development of an I-REP panel of patients/caregivers. Results: 60 patients/caregivers and 114 researchers participated in the online surveys, with completion rates of 68% and 69%, respectively. The majority of patients/caregivers were >45 years, female (66.7%), and >3 years out from their or their family member's injury (68.6%). The majority of the researchers were >35 years and male (56.2%). Participants were asked to gauge their perceptions of different research scenarios. The analysis identified themes emerging across groups. Several survey findings differed from phase 1, including motivations to participate (payment) and consent preferences (timing, approach). Racial and ethnic demographics of the participants were not collected. Conclusions: Engaging trauma stakeholders results in research more relevant to patients' needs and priorities. Qualitative engagement methods that intentionally include a more diverse population and determining the appropriate format for specific questions may lead to results that are be more generalizable. The educational webinar was well received, and several participants opted to serve as I-REP panelists to collaborate with trauma researchers moving forward. Level of evidence: IV.
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.