ArticleBMJ open quality2026
Bridging perspectives: experiences and future directions for patient involvement in clinical registries - a survey-based study.
Article in BMJ open quality, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the Netherlands, patient participation is mandatory in clinical registries. However, the practical implementation of this requirement remains unclear, and collaboration between patient representatives, chairs of Clinical Audit Boards (CABs) and registry coordinators has not been examined from a multistakeholder perspective.
objectiveTo explore experiences, perceptions and needs regarding collaboration between patient representatives, CAB chairs and registry coordinators and to identify strategies to strengthen patient participation in clinical registries.
methodsAn online survey across 26 clinical registries was distributed in 2025 to three stakeholder groups: patient representatives, chairs of CABs and registry coordinators from the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing. The questionnaire assessed frequency and quality of collaboration, perceived value of patient input, challenges and improvement needs. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.
results48 respondents participated. Overall, attitudes towards patient participation were positive. CAB chairs expressed the most favourable views on collaboration, whereas registry coordinators reported more mixed experiences, reflecting their intermediary role between governance and daily operational practice. Key challenges included limited structural clarity and role definition, methodological complexity of indicator development and data interpretation, questions of representativeness and differences between patient-identified priorities and registry requirements. Across all groups, there was a strong call for improved onboarding, training and more structured and consistent engagement.
conclusionsAlthough patient participation in clinical registries is formally established, experiences with its implementation vary widely across stakeholder groups. Strengthening structural support, mutual understanding and feedback mechanisms is essential to move from symbolic to substantive participation. Developing and evaluating a structured framework for patient engagement in clinical registries may enhance the contribution of these registries to learning, quality improvement and shared decision-making in clinical practice.
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.