ArticleResearch square2026
Promoting inclusivity and partnership with recipients of health services: Short report on redesigning Engaging All Voices (previously Consumer Voice).
Article in Research square, 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
Abstract
Background: Researchers identified "preparing patients to be active in innovations" as one of the top five most effective implementation strategies; this included educating patients to be engaged in their care. If engaging patients in their own care enhances adoption of innovations, engaging patients and service users across any setting (e.g., healthcare, education, carceral) in implementation activities may also enhance adoption. To provide guidance on this topic, we developed Consumer Voice: a free, online platform for community engagement in implementation efforts. In July 2023, we disseminated the tools and received feedback that "consumer" had a negative connotation for some. This feedback mimicked discontent with terminology for the "service user" in the broader implementation field. Our study goal was to identify inclusive, acceptable terminology for the "service user" in implementation practice or research. Methods: We collected quantitative data then qualitative data from service users, implementers, and implementation researchers in two phases: 1) Brainstorming and prioritizing terminology for service users through Nominal Group Technique, then 2) Contextualizing implications of different terms through focus groups. Between phases, we used quantitative counts to inform sampling and inductive qualitative analysis. Results: Participants represented a range of demographic groups; over 40% identified primarily as individuals receiving health services, 30% as implementers, and 26% as implementation researchers. There was consensus to rename our engagement tools "Engaging All Voices." Our data indicated there was no universally acceptable term for "service user." Even within similar communities, some terms were controversial e.g., "patient," "peer." Two terms felt off-limits to most: "stakeholder" and "user." Participants thought any engagement language should convey a sense of action and partnership to move beyond performative, superficial "engagement." Conclusions: We sampled people from multiple service settings and thus, findings may generalize in healthcare, education, carceral, and other systems. Our experience redesigning Engaging All Voices revealed that how recipients of innovations are referred to can shape receptiveness to engagement approaches. There is no single "right" term to refer to service users across settings. Engaging All Voices now guides learners in an early exercise to determine terminology preferred by service users throughout an implementation effort.
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.