ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026
Evaluating parent-led research: the power of partnership and arts-based knowledge mobilization.
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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEffective knowledge mobilization (KM) and meaningful partnerships can improve research relevance, quality, and impact. While guidance for effective KM tool development and successful research partnerships exists, practices are not consistently described or evaluated. To address this gap, we applied a mixed-methods approach to (i) describe and evaluate a set of tailored KM tools and (ii) assess parent-partnership, within a study on caregiver recruitment networks.
methodsA custom survey, distributed to participants of the primary study, was used to evaluate KM tools. The Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool 2.0© survey, and a facilitated discussion, was used to evaluate research partnership. Evaluations were conducted in year two of the two-year project. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively. Qualitative feedback underwent directed content analysis followed by inductive analysis. Data were integrated during analysis and interpretation.
resultsKM tool evaluation: Participants reported that their views were adequately reflected in each KM tool, and they were likely to recommend the tools to others. Important messaging, clarity, and visual appeal were noted as positive features across tools. The lay summary and tip sheets were concise, easy to read, yet still full of information. The painting series was described as engaging and emotionally evocative, prompting reflection on one's personal experience and drawing out feelings of "hope, partnership, and a journey". Participants provided tangible feedback on missed messages in the KM tools, or where additional emphasis or clarification was needed to support accuracy. Partnership evaluation: All team members were satisfied with their involvement. Data within the category of "What went well" highlighted knowledge gained, and personal and team-level qualities (humility, balance, honesty, positivity). The category of "What could be improved" drew attention to systemic barriers to sustained partnership (time, finances, and logistics), and lack of diversity within the team.
conclusionsInvolving primary participants in KM tool evaluation ensured message accuracy and highlighted the unique power of arts-based KM to evoke emotional resonance. Future research should consider integrating arts-based methods to complement traditional KM tools to enhance engagement with research findings. High partner satisfaction suggests that strong relational foundations can mitigate common logistical pitfalls in research partnerships.
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.