ArticlePEC innovation2025
Engaging patient partners to identify research priorities for atrial fibrillation: Results from a patient engagement day.
Article in PEC innovation, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: We describe a Patient Engagement Day from the Canadian Stroke Prevention Network (C-SPIN). Patients and family members were engaged as patient partners to generate and prioritize future direction for Atrial Fibrillation (AF) research. Methods: A facilitated group discussion methodology was used that included a nominal group brainstorming and decision-making technique designed to foster participation and idea generation. Results: Twenty-four patient partners attended. Priorities related to: 1) need for a curative focus and not new medication (84 %), 2) identification of triggers (53 %), and 3) home-based/remote monitoring (53 %). Use of the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) found patient partners understood the intent of the day, with its objectives being met. Findings highlighted knowledge gaps by patient partners that were previously thought to be understood. Conclusion: Patient partners could benefit from more focused education about atrial fibrillation. Notably, the priorities identified by patient partners were new to the research team, reinforcing the importance of engaging with the population who will be impacted by the research. Innovation: Little research has been undertaken examining patient partner priorities regarding atrial fibrillation research. This work highlights patient partners' interest in providing input and shaping future research endeavors.
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.