Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42192557›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026

Patient partnership in primary health care systems of the future: a structured priority setting exercise.

Rebecca Ganann, Maggie MacNeil, Aya Tagami, Jennifer Boyle, Clare Cruickshank, Aref Alshaikhahmed, Joan Barker, JoAnn Stans, Ashley Chisholm, Gulafroz Akbari and 4 more

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

14 authors.

Rebecca GanannSchool of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. ganannrl@mcmaster.ca.
Maggie MacNeilSchool of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Aya TagamiSchool of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Jennifer BoylePatient Expertise in Research Collaboration, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Clare CruickshankPatient Expertise in Research Collaboration, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Aref AlshaikhahmedPatient Expertise in Research Collaboration, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Joan BarkerPatient Expertise in Research Collaboration, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
JoAnn StansPatient Expertise in Research Collaboration, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Ashley ChisholmCanadian Medical Association, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Gulafroz AkbariPatient Expertise in Research Collaboration, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Ron BelenoPatient Expertise in Research Collaboration, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Mary HuangPatient Expertise in Research Collaboration, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Caron LeidPatient Expertise in Research Collaboration, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Vivian R RamsdenDepartment of Academic Family Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrimary health care (PHC) provides holistic care to patients across the lifespan and offers a whole-society approach to health and wellbeing. PHC services are accessed by more people than any other type of healthcare in Ontario. While patient engagement in research is increasingly common, it is less common in PHC to engage patients in decision-making beyond point-of-care. Roles for patient partners in learning health systems, including PHC, can be unclear and yet patient partners desire opportunities to meaningfully contribute to these rapid cycles of learning and improvement. Facilitating patient engagement in multiple PHC domains (design, delivery, research, and education) may improve how PHC is organized at local, regional, and provincial levels, and how responsive it is to patient needs.

methodsTo explore ways to integrate patient partners into future PHC systems, the study activities were structured into six stages of group concept mapping (which integrates qualitative individual and group processes with multivariate statistics to describe a topic). Our objective was to engage Canadian PHC interest holders to answer the following research question: "In what ways can patient partners support PHC design, delivery, research, and education?". Ideas were generated by academics/researchers/health professionals [n = 40; 43%], patients/caregivers[n = 19; 20%], trainees [n = 17; 18%], 'other' interest holders [n = 11; 18%] and policy/decision makers [n = 7; 7%]. Eleven patients/caregivers were engaged as partners in study planning, implementation and knowledge mobilization; eight also acted as participants in concept mapping activities. Data were collected through an in-person workshop in Ontario, CA and online.

resultsEighty-four discrete ideas were identified, rated and sorted into a nine-cluster concept map. The most important and feasible clusters identified roles in advancing equity, informing research funding/priorities, and supporting patient partnerships. A cluster of ideas about integrating patient partners in PHC policy and governance roles was deemed important but more challenging to enact.

conclusionPHC reform presents opportunities to integrate patient partners' lived and living experiences and their expertise into health systems. Doing so will contribute to a PHC system informed by patients' priorities, maximizing real-world impact.

Identifiers

PMID42192557
PMCPMC13202828

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.