Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38347658›Full record

ReviewResearch involvement and engagement2024

Protocol for co-producing a framework and integrated resource platform for engaging patients in laboratory-based research.

Manoj M Lalu, Dawn Richards, Madison Foster, Brittany French, Angela M Crawley, Kirsten M Fiest, Kathryn Hendrick, Kimberly F Macala, Asher A Mendelson, Pat Messner and 6 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Research involvement and engagement, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Engaging patient communities in intracranial neuroscience research.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The Development of Principles for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Preclinical Spinal Cord Research: A Modified Delphi Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  6. 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

16 authors.

Manoj M LaluBlueprint Translational Research Group, Clinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada. mlalu@toh.ca.
Dawn RichardsFive 02 Labs Inc, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Madison FosterBlueprint Translational Research Group, Clinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Brittany FrenchBlueprint Translational Research Group, Clinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Angela M CrawleyChronic Disease Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Kirsten M FiestDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Kathryn HendrickPatient Partner, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Kimberly F MacalaDepartments of Critical Care Medicine and Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Asher A MendelsonSection of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Pat MessnerPatient Partner, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Stuart G NichollsOttawa Methods Centre, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Justin PresseauBlueprint Translational Research Group, Clinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Cheryle A SéguinDepartment of Physiology and Pharmacology, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, The University of Western, London, ON, Canada.
Patrick SullivanPatient Partner, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Bernard ThébaudRegenerative Medicine Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Dean A FergussonBlueprint Translational Research Group, Clinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Funding

CIHR PJT-183721
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient engagement in research is the meaningful and collaborative interaction between patients and researchers throughout the research process. Patient engagement can help to ensure patient-oriented values and perspectives are incorporated into the development, conduct, and dissemination of research. While patient engagement is increasingly prevalent in clinical research, it remains relatively unrealized in preclinical laboratory research. This may reflect the nature of preclinical research, in which routine interactions or engagement with patients may be less common. Our team of patient partners and researchers has previously identified few published examples of patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research, as well as a paucity of guidance on this topic. Here we propose the development of a process framework to facilitate patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research.

methodsOur team, inclusive of researchers and patient partners, will develop a comprehensive, empirically-derived, and stakeholder-informed process framework for 'patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research.' First, our team will create a 'deliberative knowledge space' to conduct semi-structured discussions that will inform a draft framework for preclinical patient engagement. Over the course of several sessions, we will identify actions, activities, barriers, and enablers (e.g. considerations and motivations for patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research, define roles of key players). The resulting draft process framework will be further populated with examples and refined through an international consensus-building Delphi survey with patients, researchers, and other collaborator organizations. We will then conduct pilot field tests to evaluate the framework with preclinical laboratory research groups paired with patient partners. These results will be used to create a refined framework enriched with real-world examples and considerations. All resources developed will be made available through an online repository. DISCUSSION: Our proposed process framework will provide guidance, best practices, and standardized procedures to promote patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. Supporting and facilitating patient engagement in this setting presents an exciting new opportunity to help realize the important impact that patients can make.

Indexed as

Basic scienceConsumer involvementDeliberative knowledge spaceDelphi surveyFrameworkLaboratory researchPatient and public involvementPatient engagementPatient oriented researchPilot field testPreclinical laboratory researchPreclinical research

Identifiers

PMID38347658
PMCPMC10863123

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.