Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40437687›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2025

Recognising Consumers' Contributions to Health Research: Co-Designing a Remuneration Framework for the Australian Context.

Mingming Zhou, Anne Parkinson, Lucy Clynes, Jane Desborough

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Consumer Engagement in Chronic Conditions Research: An Integrated Framework Informed by Recognition Theory.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mingming ZhouDepartment of Health Economics, Wellbeing and Society, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health (NCEPH), Australian National University (ANU), Canberra, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1839-4979
Anne ParkinsonDepartment of Health Economics, Wellbeing and Society, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health (NCEPH), Australian National University (ANU), Canberra, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9053-0707
Lucy ClynesResearch Australia, Canberra, Australia.
Jane DesboroughDepartment of Health Economics, Wellbeing and Society, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health (NCEPH), Australian National University (ANU), Canberra, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1406-4593

Funding

This study was funded by the Australian Research Council, Discovery Early Career Researcher Award #DE220100663 and The Real Price of Health: Experiences of Out-of-Pocket Costs in Australia.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConsumer engagement ensures research reflects lived health experiences and remains relevant to consumers' needs. However, challenges persist in appropriately recognising their contributions. Remuneration for consumers' time, skills and expertise, alongside reimbursing out-of-pocket expenses, remains a key challenge. While individual remuneration policies exist across Australian states and territories, a cohesive national framework has yet to be developed.

objectiveThis study aimed to develop a remuneration framework recognising consumers' contributions to health research in Australia.

methodsThe framework was developed through: (1) a review of the international literature and Australian state- and territory-based consumer advocacy organisation remuneration guidelines, (2) a stakeholder survey of current practices and (3) integration of findings to develop four preliminary remuneration models, which were presented for deliberation in six workshops with key stakeholders. Workshop data were analysed using framework analysis.

resultsWorkshop participants included twelve representatives from research organisations and nine consumers with chronic conditions. The final framework comprises: (1) decision-making considerations, (2) remuneration rates (project-based, meeting-based and hourly rates), (3) payment methods and (4) non-financial recognition approaches. The framework was designed to address the needs of diverse organisations, from small not-for-profit entities to larger research institutions with dedicated funding.

conclusionThis study developed the first nationwide remuneration framework to guide the Australian research community in recognising consumers' contributions to health research. While not the only model for remuneration decision-making, it serves as a valuable starting point for dialogue and future policy development. Further evaluation incorporating consumer partners' experiences across diverse research contexts is essential to enhance the framework's applicability and foster fair recognition for contributions to research. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A project working group, including representatives from nine Research Australia member organisations, was actively involved throughout the study. These included three large universities from three different Australian states, one state-based local health district representative and five national independent not-for-profit research organisations, including four consumer-led disease-specific organisations. Each organisation was represented by 1-2 people at each meeting. Including four members of the research team and two members of Research Australia, each meeting was comprised of 18-20 people. Their contributions included refining study aims, reviewing and piloting the survey, conceptualising remuneration models, recruiting workshop participants and finalising the remuneration framework. Input was gathered through three online meetings and email exchanges. The first meeting focused on survey design and distribution; the second on survey findings, remuneration models and recruitment strategies; and the final on reviewing workshop findings and co-designing the remuneration framework. Additionally, 21 participants (9 consumers with lived experience of chronic conditions and 12 organisational representatives) contributed to six deliberative workshops.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchCommunity ParticipationRemunerationAustraliaDecision MakingHumansconsumer engagementframeworkhealth researchpatient and public involvementreimbursementremuneration

Identifiers

PMID40437687
PMCPMC12119376

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.