Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35593113›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2022

Patient and researcher experiences of patient engagement in primary care health care research: A participatory qualitative study.

Sophie Béland, Mireille Lambert, Alannah Delahunty-Pike, Dana Howse, Charlotte Schwarz, Maud-Christine Chouinard, Kris Aubrey-Bassler, Fred Burge, Shelley Doucet, Alya Danish and 12 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
8.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Patients as Co-Researchers in Oncology: A Qualitative Exploration of Participatory Governance.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Consumer Engagement in Chronic Conditions Research: An Integrated Framework Informed by Recognition Theory.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Public Involvement in Complex Theorising: A Co-Produced Logic Model of the Role of Context in Shaping Child Health.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. The Importance of Lived Experience: A Scoping Review on the Value of Patient and Public Involvement in Health Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. [Research partners in health services research: need, acceptance and feasibility of preparatory trainings].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2024
    Article
  20. Article
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

22 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Sophie BélandDépartement de Médecine de Famille et de Médecine D'urgence, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.
Mireille LambertCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, Chicoutimi, Quebec, Canada.
Alannah Delahunty-PikeDepartment of Family Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Dana HowsePrimary Healthcare Research Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, St-John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.
Charlotte SchwarzDepartment of Nursing and Health Sciences, University of New Brunswick, St-John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.
Maud-Christine ChouinardFaculté des Sciences Infirmières, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Kris Aubrey-BasslerPrimary Healthcare Research Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, St-John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.
Fred BurgeDepartment of Family Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Shelley DoucetDepartment of Nursing and Health Sciences, University of New Brunswick, St-John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.
Alya DanishCanadian Institutes of Health Research, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Olivier Dumont-SamsonDépartement de Médecine de Famille et de Médecine D'urgence, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.
Mathieu BissonDépartement de Médecine de Famille et de Médecine D'urgence, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.
Alison LukeDepartment of Nursing and Health Sciences, University of New Brunswick, St-John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.
Marilyn MacdonaldSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
André GaudreauPatient Partner.
Judy PorterPatient Partner.
Donna RubensteinPatient Partner.
Véronique SabourinPatient Partner.
Cathy ScottPatient Partner.
Mike WarrenPatient Partner.
Linda WilhelmPatient Partner.
Catherine HudonDépartement de Médecine de Famille et de Médecine D'urgence, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6140-9916
Université de Sherbrooke · CADalhousie University · CAUniversity of New Brunswick · CAMemorial University of Newfoundland · CACanadian Institutes of Health Research · CACentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean · CAUniversité de Montréal · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudies have highlighted common challenges and barriers to patient engagement in research, but most were based on patient partners' or academic researchers' experiences. A better understanding of how both groups differentially experience their partnership could help identify strategies to improve collaboration in patient engagement research.

aimThis study aimed to describe and compare patient partners' and academic researchers' experiences in patient engagement research.

methodsBased on a participatory approach, a descriptive qualitative study was conducted with patient partners and academic researchers who are involved in the PriCARE research programme in primary health care to examine their experience of patient engagement. Individual semi-structured interviews with patient partners (n = 7) and academic researchers (n = 15) were conducted. Academic researchers' interview verbatims, deidentified patient partners' summaries of their interviews and summaries of meetings with patient partners were analysed using inductive thematic analysis in collaboration with patient partners.

resultsPatient partners and academic researchers' experiences with patient engagement are captured within four themes: (1) evolving relationships; (2) creating an environment that fosters patient engagement; (3) striking a balance; and (4) impact and value of patient engagement. Evolving relationships refers to how partnerships grew and improved over time with an acceptance of tensions and willingness to move beyond them, two-way communication and leadership of key team members. Creating an environment that fosters patient engagement requires appropriate structural support, such as clear descriptions of patient partner roles; adequate training for all team members; institutional guidance on patient engagement; regular and appropriate translation services; and financial assistance. For patient partners and academic researchers, striking a balance referred to the challenge of reconciling patient partners' interests and established research practices. Finally, both groups recognized the value and positive impact of patient engagement in the programme in terms of improving the relevance of research and the applicability of results. While patient partners and academic researchers identified similar challenges and strategies, their experiences of patient engagement differed according to their own backgrounds, motives and expectations.

conclusionBoth patient partners and academic researchers highlighted the importance of finding a balance between providing structure or guidelines for patient engagement, while allowing for flexibility along the way. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient partners from the PriCARE research programme were involved in the following aspects of the current study: (1) development of the research objectives; (2) planning of the research design; (3) development and validation of data collection tools (i.e., interview guides); (4) production of data (i.e., acted as interviewees); (5) validation of data analysis tools (code book); (6) analysis of qualitative data; and (7) drafting of the manuscript and contributing to other knowledge translation activities, such as conference presentations and the creation of a short animated video.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationResearch PersonnelCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchHealth Services ResearchHumansPrimary Health CareQualitative Researchparticipatory action researchpatient engagementpatient-oriented research

Identifiers

PMID35593113
PMCPMC9615076
OpenAlexW4280592029

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.