Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33026639›Full record

ArticleThe patient2020

Patient Engagement Partnerships in Clinical Trials: Development of Patient Partner and Investigator Decision Aids.

Monica Parry, Ann Kristin Bjørnnes, Karine Toupin-April, Adhiyat Najam, David Wells, Aditi Sivakumar, Dawn P Richards, Tina Ceroni, Marianne Park, Anne K Ellis and 2 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The patient, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Alignment of patient-centredness definitions with real-life patient and clinician experiences: A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Monica ParryLawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Suite 130, Toronto, ON, M5T 1P8, Canada. monica.parry@utoronto.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6941-1380
Ann Kristin BjørnnesDepartment of Nursing and Health Promotion, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.
Karine Toupin-AprilSchool of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Adhiyat NajamPatient Partner, Diabetes Action Canada, Toronto, ON, Canada.
David WellsPatient Partner, Diabetes Action Canada, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Aditi SivakumarFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Dawn P RichardsClinical Trials Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Tina CeroniPatient Partner, Clinical Trials Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Marianne ParkPatient Partner, Network of Women with Disabilities, Woodstock, ON, Canada.
Anne K EllisDepartment of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Ian GilronDepartments of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Biomedical and Molecular Sciences and School of Policy Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Susan MarlinPatient Partner, Diabetes Action Canada, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Diabetes Canada · CAQueen's University · CARobarts Clinical Trials · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CAOsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University · NOUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

CIHR 397455
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA 2017 systematic review suggested patient engagement in clinical trials has been limited, with little active engagement in trial design or data analysis, interpretation or dissemination. Additionally, there remains limited sex/gender reporting in clinical trial research.

objectivesThe overall goal of this project was to disseminate sex/gender knowledge and build capacity for patient engagement in clinical trials. Specific objectives were to (1) create capacity and identify opportunities for patient engagement in clinical trials and sponsor- or investigator-led activities (e.g. clinical trial design and conduct); and (2) enhance new/early investigator sex/gender knowledge and skills related to patient-oriented research (POR).

methodsWe used the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) Capacity Development Framework and the SPOR Patient Engagement Framework to guide three phases of this project: (1) conduct a scoping review using methods described by the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information (EPPI) and the Coordinating Centre at the Institute of Education (Phase 1); (2) host a 1-day POR consultation workshop (Phase 2); and (3) deliver a new/early investigator POR training day (Phase 3). Six electronic databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, the Cochrane Library, and AMED) were searched from 1996 using keywords and Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms in accordance with the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) and the search criteria in the bibliographic databases. Standard approaches were used to search the grey literature.

resultsA total of 79 studies and over 150 websites were subject to data abstraction by team members, capturing information on sex/gender and SPOR's patient engagement guiding principles of inclusiveness, support, mutual respect, and co-building. Results were presented to 32 key stakeholders at the consultation workshop and input was sought on next steps using nominal group techniques. Based on the plethora of existing POR resources, relevant POR information from the scoping review was collated into two decision aids (patient and investigator) to determine readiness to engage with/as a patient partner in a clinical trial. The decision aids were presented at a POR training day with 88 new/early investigators, clinicians, patient partners and decision makers. The decision aids showed 'good' usability, assessed using the System Usability Scale (SUS). Attendees thought the decision aids were engaging, they increased their understanding of sex/gender, patient engagement and POR, and they would recommend them to others. POR principles and practices were integrated across all phases of the project. Patient partners (1) identified research priorities/search terms; (2) collected/analyzed data; (3) designed the patient partner decision aid; and (4) disseminated the results through presentation.

conclusionOur digital patient partner and investigator decision aids are the first to provide information technology to deliver sex/gender, POR knowledge, and decision support beyond the traditional decision aids used for health screening and/or treatment decisions. The decision aids have the potential to make a significant contribution to Canada's Strategy for POR and support the collaborative efforts of patients and investigators to build a sustainable, accessible and equitable health care system.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationResearch PersonnelCanadaDecision Support TechniquesFemaleHealth Services ResearchHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID33026639
PMCPMC7655585
OpenAlexW3091819136

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 Socratic graph.