ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Community case study of patient and clinician early engagement in research on multiple chronic conditions using an implementation guide.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. 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.
- Translating scores into meaning: a co-produced forum for patient-reported outcome measure interpretation in pediatric congenital heart disease.Research involvement and engagement · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This case study describes the CIRCLE (Collaboratively Inspired Research Community for Learning and Engagement) project, which aimed to advance meaningful community engagement in research about multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) by co-creating a research agenda with patients, caregivers, clinicians, and researchers. The project was conducted entirely virtually, utilizing a structured process with engagement tools adapted from a prior Patient Partner Guide. It included three stages: (1) develop the virtual environment and adapt the engagement process and tools, (2) recruit and train co-creators and facilitators to test the process and tools collaboratively and make iterative improvements, and (3) implement these tools in ten-week group sessions. Project participants in the group sessions - adults with or caring for individuals with MCCs - were recruited from a previous national trial. They engaged in interactive activities such as needs assessments related to engagement, Affinity Diagrams, and Shared Lived Experiences. Results demonstrated success in two domains: (1) successful engagement in early stages of collaborative research as measured by recruitment (59 initial participants) and high levels of retention (89%) and participation (100% completion of initial assessment; 78-82% of other assessments and activities; positive qualitative evaluations) and (2) successful completion of a Partnering Guide for Research (PGR) and a prioritized research agenda for MCCs. The project is a demonstration of intentional, structured virtual engagement processes and supportive environments fostering equitable partnerships and trust while producing intended products. The PGR is a replicable implementation guide to be used by other teams seeking to integrate community voices into health research starting with a research agenda.
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.