ArticleSpinal cord2023
Consumer engagement in doctoral research - what difference does it make?
Article in Spinal cord, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Public Involvement in Doctoral Research Using a Four-Dimensional Theoretical Framework.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Participatory evaluation of the process of co-producing resources for the public on data science and artificial intelligence.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- Research Buddy partnership in a MD-PhD program: lessons learned.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designQualitative reflective descriptive study.
objectiveTo evaluate a consumer engagement experience in the context of doctoral research.
settingFull time doctoral research at an Australian university.
methodA reflective evaluation of consumer engagement was completed, presented using the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public, and frameworks of the research cycle, levels of consumer participation and integrated knowledge translation guiding principles providing theoretical background. Seven people with SCI (n = 6 men, n = 1 woman) replied to an expression of interest to join a Consumer Advisory Group for a doctoral researcher. Activities included: four 90-minute meetings, formal and ad-hoc email exchanges, and one-to-one conversations as required. Data sources included meeting transcripts, email correspondence, researcher's notes, and a short consumer survey.
resultsConsumer engagement occurred at each stage of the research cycle and met all guiding principles. Consumers participated at consultation and involving levels, however, collaboration evolved. Enablers included a common interest for the research topic, rapport with the researcher, using a virtual platform to disseminate research findings, supervisory support, and availability of funding. Challenges included complexity in harnessing different perspectives, using a virtual platform for group meetings, time, and consumers' negative experiences of media.
conclusionConsumer engagement informed doctoral research by promoting nuanced perspectives on the unique experiences of living with SCI, providing unanticipated richness to data analysis. Building trust, and being responsive, led to in-depth consumer participation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.