ArticleLearning health systems2026
Promising Patient-Engagement Practices Used by National Research Networks at the US Veterans Health Administration: Perspectives of Veterans, Staff, and Research Leaders.
Article in Learning health systems, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Active involvement of patients is an essential feature of learning health systems and patient-centered research. Research networks and healthcare organizations lack guidance on best practices for developing and sustaining patient engagement infrastructure. We sought to examine perspectives on promising Veteran-engagement infrastructure and practices used by US Veterans Affairs (VA) research networks. Methods: We solicited expert opinion from three separate panels of Veterans, VA engagement staff, and VA research leaders using a modified Delphi process comprising two rounds of online surveys and a set of virtual group meetings or individual interviews. In a prior study, we identified promising engagement practices in use by VA national research networks. We analyzed survey data with predefined rating categories to determine which practices the three expert panels consistently endorsed. We used thematic analysis to compare experts' perspectives across panels and to identify emergent cross-cutting themes. Results: Veterans, VA engagement staff, and VA research leaders consistently endorsed 66% (29/44) of the research networks' promising Veteran-engagement practices. Summarized, these practices formed five recommended engagement-related responsibilities for VA research networks. Some network engagement practices were inconsistently endorsed (13/44, 30%), and two practices (4%) received overall ratings of neutral or unsure by at least one expert panel. Network practices not consistently endorsed varied by expert panel, but panelists' comments reflected three overarching themes: constraint of resource availability, commitment to respectful and meaningful engagement processes, and concern for potential burden on partners. Conclusions: Panelists' perspectives highlight challenges regarding how to best invest limited patient-engagement resources within research and learning health system organizations. Research network engagement infrastructure can help expand the capacity and culture of patient-centered research and care. Organizations seeking to function as learning health systems need to devote planning time, skilled staff, and funds to develop and sustain patient-engagement infrastructure tailored to their context.
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.