ArticleBMJ open2024
Development and validation of a pragmatic measure of cocreation in research engagement: a study protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The costs of partner engagement in research: Opportunities for pragmatic research, implementation science, and the science of engagement.Journal of clinical and translational science · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCocreation, a collaborative process of key interested partners working alongside researchers, is fundamental to community-engaged research. However, the field of community-engaged research is currently grappling with a significant gap: the lack of a pragmatic and validated measure to assess the quality of this process. This protocol addresses this significant gap by developing and testing a pragmatic cocreation measure with diverse community and research partners involved in participatory health-related research. A valid measure for evaluating the quality of the cocreation process can significantly promote inclusive research practices and outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The measure consists of two components: (1) an iterative group assessment to prioritise cocreation principles and identify specific activities for achieving those principles and (2) a survey assessing individual partner experience. An expert panel of 16-20 patients, community, healthcare providers and research partners, will participate in a modified Delphi process to assist in construct delineation and assess content validity using group discussions and rating exercises. We will compute survey items using an Item-Level Content Validity Index and a modified kappa statistic to adjust for chance agreement with panel members' ratings. We will then conduct cognitive interviews with a new group of 40 participants to assess survey item comprehension and interpretation, applying an iterative coding process to analyse the data. Finally, we will assess the measure's psychometric and pragmatic characteristics with a convenience sample of 300 participants and use the Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale. Construct validity will be assessed by examining survey data using confirmatory and exploratory factor analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This funded study (years 2024-2025) has been approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Colorado, Denver. The team will share the study findings online, with key partners, and by publishing results in a peer-reviewed journal.
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.