ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2025
Stronger together; evaluating consumers and researchers working in partnership.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConsumer engagement in medical research should be early, ongoing, and meaningful, to improve patient-centred research design and outcomes. Evaluating the impact of consumer input builds the evidence base needed to sustain and improve ongoing involvement efforts. Multiple evaluation tools are available. Here we explore the landscape of evaluation tools and apply the Australian Clinical Trials Alliance (ACTA) tool to evaluate the impact and process of consumer involvement in a recently completed project.
methodsThe ACTA evaluation tool was administered to all consumers and research team members in the "RECAP" study. The RECAP study is co-designed as a single-arm trial that implemented registry-generated personalised care plans for patients with newly diagnosed rectal cancer. The ACTA evaluation tool responses underwent thematic analysis, and the research and consumer group assessed the utility of the tool.
resultsThe ACTA evaluation tool was completed by the entire team, including six consumers and four researchers. Thematic analysis highlighted inclusivity, workload, communication and remuneration as key considerations in the process of consumer involvement. Consumer impact was measured in terms of seven domains of critical research outcomes. Consumer involvement in the RECAP project was identified to be meaningful, respectful, inclusive, and impactful. The evaluation tool was considered appropriate by all respondents, who identified the ease of use, low burden and ability to address both the consumer impact and experience as positive factors. Identified areas for development included the repetitiveness and lack of specify of some questions, and the uncertainty about the desired length of response.
conclusionThe ACTA evaluation tool was successfully administered to a team of consumers and researchers engaged in a recently completed trial with positive assessment of tool utility.
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.