ArticleBMJ open2026
Older adults as active research partners: protocol for an umbrella review.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
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
introductionThe involvement of older adults as active partners in research is increasingly being promoted to improve the relevance and impact of scientific knowledge. However, the evidence base on how older adults have been involved as active partners in healthcare research remains fragmented. To our knowledge, no review of reviews has yet provided a comprehensive overview of this body of evidence. Therefore, this umbrella review aims to synthesise review-level evidence on the involvement of older adults as active research partners. We address three questions: (1) How have older adults been involved as active partners in research? (2) What terminology, models and frameworks have been used? (3) What benefits and challenges have been reported related to involving older adults as active partners in research? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for umbrella reviews. A comprehensive search will be conducted in Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts and Web of Science. Eligible reviews will be those reporting on the involvement of older adults (aged 60 years or older) as active partners in research. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full texts and perform data extraction using a standardised form. Methodological quality will be assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews. Findings will be synthesised narratively and thematically, with attention to reported roles, terminology, conceptual frameworks and the benefits and challenges of involvement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this umbrella review draws exclusively on secondary data from published sources, ethical approval is not required. Older adults, engaged as independent public contributors, have been involved in shaping the review protocol and will take part in interpreting the findings. Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal and presentations at academic and stakeholder conferences, and used to inform the design of a subsequent mixed-methods study focused on strengthening the involvement of older adults as active partners in research. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251064947.
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.