ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2026
A Co-Developed Evaluation Framework for a Patient Engagement Programme Within a National Dementia Research Network.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWhile there is growing consensus on the importance of engaging people with lived experience in research, there is little agreement on how best to evaluate these initiatives. Co-designed frameworks tailored to specific contexts have been recommended. Our objective was to co-develop an evaluation framework to assess the implementation and impact of the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA)'s Engagement of People with Lived Experience of Dementia (EPLED) programme.
methodsWe followed a four-step process: (1) determine objectives for engagement; (2) co-develop a theory of change; (3) identify quantitative and qualitative methods to collect information and develop an evaluation plan; and (4) establish a feedback loop. The framework was co-produced with four members of the EPLED Advisory Group: a person living with dementia and three caregivers/care partners.
resultsThe programme logic model, a visual roadmap, was a foundational step, articulating programme activities and their linkages to intended outcomes. The framework was guided by four evaluation questions, each aligned with indicators, methods and information sources. Our data collection approach includes data collection from Advisory Group members and researchers, using questionnaires and an arts-based evaluation design tailored to promote inclusivity and engagement. Data will be collated and disseminated through various mediums and responses from the arts-based activity will be compiled into a collective digital mural.
conclusionOur report contributes to the existing literature by providing an innovative example of a co-developed evaluation framework in the context of a national research network. The insights could inform future efforts in evaluating initiatives intended to meaningfully engage patient partners in research, particularly people with lived experience of dementia. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People with lived experience took part in all aspects of this work. They contributed to the development of the funding proposal and were listed as co-investigators on the grant. They were involved in the development of the evaluation framework described herein and have co-authored the current manuscript.
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.