ReviewResearch involvement and engagement2025
From engagement to evidence: a scoping review of qualitative and quantitative measures of adult patient engagement in research.
Review in Research involvement and engagement, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient engagement in research has been found to improve the quality and relevance of research findings. Quantifying levels of patient engagement may be beneficial in measuring engagement quality, yet tools for this purpose remain scarce. A scoping review was conducted to summarize and analyze existing tools used to measure patient engagement in research for the purpose of assessing the content validity of Hamilton et al.’s Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS).
methodsThe electronic database Ovid MEDLINE was used to conduct a search related to keywords and controlled vocabulary from 2017 - November 10, 2023, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. Articles were included if they quantitatively or qualitatively measured any outcome of patient engagement in research, exclusively with patients as participants. Data extraction, completed in Microsoft Excel, included the name of the research engagement tool, the type of tool (i.e., questionnaire, survey, or scale), sample size, source, and characteristics, and time frame of data collection.
resultsFive articles were ultimately included in this scoping review after an initial search returned 1719 citations. The most common reason for exclusion during the full text review stage was that articles were review articles. Of selected articles that included demographic data, the majority of participants were women and White. Articles highlighted areas for improvement in existing tools, including the need for patient collaboration at each stage of the research process and stronger communication between researchers and patient partners.
conclusionsEfforts to effectively measure patient engagement in research remain scant. Included studies were limited by inconsistency in defining “patient engagement” and a lack of demographic data collection.
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.