Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41904594›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026

Supporting researchers to involve patient partners in health service research: developing and assessing the feasibility and acceptability of a co-produced training programme for researchers.

S C Tscherning, T W Vedelø, F O Jensen, A L Jensen, H L Bekker, L Ø Rodkjaer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

S C TscherningDepartment of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. sct@ph.au.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2285-6603
T W VedeløDepartment of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9181-9000
F O JensenAarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
A L JensenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2025-6663
H L BekkerLeeds Unit for Complex Intervention Development, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1978-5795
L Ø RodkjaerDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1570-2120

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInvolving people and next of kin as patient partners in research can enhance research quality. Training researchers seems to be an effective way to support meaningful involvement of patient partners. Although guidance is increasingly available, Danish researchers lack support for implementing patient partner involvement. Providing a dedicated training programme for researchers could help them establish meaningful partnerships with patient partners.

methodsThis study aimed to develop and evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a training programme designed to assist researchers in involving patient partners. The training programme was co-produced by researchers and patient partners, who are referred to as patient partner teachers. The development and feasibility phases were guided by the Medical Research Council's framework for developing complex interventions and structured according to the six parameters of the didactic relationship model: 'prerequisites for learning', 'learning goals', 'settings and conditions', 'learning process', 'educational content', and 'evaluation of learning'. Feasibility and acceptability were assessed through questionnaires completed by participants before, during, and after the training programme.

resultsThe didactic relationship model provided a strong pedagogical basis for developing a training programme. The co-production process was effectively managed, with patient partner teachers reporting feeling involved throughout the project, especially in communication and partnership within the development team. A total of 32 participants, including researchers with various job titles, attended the training. Most participants indicated they had extensive research experience but limited knowledge of and confidence in involving patient partners. The training programme - which was customised to meet the needs of diverse participants and delivered in small groups - proved beneficial, boosting their confidence. Overall, the participants expressed satisfaction with the programme and enthusiasm for the patient partner teachers, and 85% would recommend the training to a colleague.

conclusionsThis training programme was feasible and addressed participants' needs. The co-production process was essential for both developing and delivering the training. Future research should examine additional factors that encourage meaningful involvement of patient partners in the research process.

Indexed as

Complex intervention designCo-productionPatient and public involvementPatient engagementPublic involvementResearch personnelTraining programme

Identifiers

PMID41904594
PMCPMC13151390

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.