ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2025
Evaluation of the Patient Innovation Partner Role: Perceived Benefits, Structures, Supports, and Recommendations for Lived Experience Engagement in Healthcare Innovation Teams.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2025. 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.
- Operationalizing Trauma-Informed Principles to Build Safe, Inclusive, and Equitable Patient Partnerships in Pediatric Pain Research.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- Visualized shared mental modeling: an adapted practical framework for interdisciplinary teams solving complex problems in healthcare.BMC health services research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient engagement plays a valuable role in health research and quality improvement. While prior research highlights some principles and key considerations for patient involvement in these efforts, there is a limited understanding of how best to structure and support this engagement, especially from the patient perspective and for healthcare innovation projects.
methodsTranscripts and notes from semi-structured debrief interviews with patient partners (n = 14) and team leads (n = 22) of 14 healthcare innovation projects conducted between 2020 and 2023 were analyzed thematically to identify perceived benefits, structures and supports that shape lived-experience engagement, and recommendations for future patients' participation in healthcare innovation teams.
resultsLived-experience engagement was perceived as highly valuable to project teams and rewarding to the patients themselves. Approaches for structuring and supporting the patient role shaped engagement, highlighting several strategies (e.g., providing patient partners with opportunities to reflect and prepare, having smaller check-ins, truly getting to know the patient, and offering opportunities for in-person connection) to enhance the experience and ameliorate challenges. Patients also emphasized the importance of sharing their perspectives to fully realize the benefits of their engagement.
conclusionThese findings highlight the importance of recognizing the bidirectional benefits of patient engagement within project teams. Taking opportunities to check in with patients throughout the project period, both formally and informally, regarding their preferences for involvement and experiences on the team would enable real-time feedback and adjustments to optimize patient partner engagement. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Since its inception, the Susan and Richard Levy Healthcare Delivery Incubator has incorporated patient and public involvement into the design and operations of its healthcare innovation projects. While the conceptualization of this analysis did not engage patients or the public, patients and individuals with lived experience provided the data. Further, three patient partners were engaged in the review of the findings, two of whom also actively contributed to the preparation of the manuscript by reviewing drafts, adding content, and making revisions.
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.