Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39696699›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2024

Establishing patient partners' roles on research teams: a scoping review.

Georgia Tobiano, Brigid M Gillespie, Joan Carlini, Rachel Muir, Jananee Rasiah, Ching Shan Wan, Tamara L McCarron, Karen Moffat, Sepideh Jahandideh, Wendy Chaboyer

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article 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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

10 authors.

Georgia TobianoNHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Wiser Wound Care, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, 1 Parklands Dr, Southport, QLD, 4222, Australia.
Brigid M GillespieNHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Wiser Wound Care, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, 1 Parklands Dr, Southport, QLD, 4222, Australia.
Joan CarliniGriffith University, Parklands Drive, Southport, QLD, 4222, Australia.
Rachel MuirSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, 1 Parklands Dr, Southport, QLD, 4222, Australia.
Jananee RasiahFaculty of Nursing, MacEwan University, Robbins Health Learning Centre, 9-511E, 10910-104 Avenue NW, Edmonton, AB, T5J 4S2, Canada.
Ching Shan WanNHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Wiser Wound Care, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, 1 Parklands Dr, Southport, QLD, 4222, Australia.
Tamara L McCarronCumming School of Medicine, Department of Community Health Science, University of Calgary, 3D10, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada.
Karen MoffatAlberta Health Services, Seventh Street Plaza, 14 Floor North Tower, 10030-107 Street NW, Edmonton, AB, T5J-3E4, Canada.
Sepideh JahandidehSchool of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University, 1 Parklands Dr, Southport, QLD, 4215, Australia.
Wendy ChaboyerNHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Wiser Wound Care, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, 1 Parklands Dr, Southport, QLD, 4222, Australia. w.chaboyer@griffith.edu.au.

Funding

NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Wiser Wound Care APP1196436
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are a myriad of ways patient partners can enact their roles on research teams. International guidelines emphasize the need for a collaborative approach to determining these roles to try to improve research impact and positive patient partner experience. The aims of this review were to: (1) describe how patient partners' roles as co-researchers in health research are determined; and (2) identify factors that influence how these decisions are made.

methodsA scoping review was conducted. Four databases were searched plus citation searching occurred. Descriptions of English language studies of any design and commentaries of studies that report on patient partners' or researchers' reflections on their decision-making processes for engagement were included. Two reviewers completed screening and data extraction, with a third to resolve disagreements. Results were summarized and then content analysis was undertaken to synthesize the findings. Two patient partners contributed to the protocol development, screening, data interpretation, and manuscript writing at varying times during the process.

resultsA total of 45 papers (25 commentaries, 19 studies and 1 both a study and commentary) were included in this review. Most papers were from the United Kingdom (n = 15) and Canada (n = 12). Most patient partners had experiences related to chronic conditions rather than acute or time-limited illnesses. The synthesis yielded two categories. The first category, the research and research team attributes shape patient partner roles, encompassed patient partner, researcher and activity related factors that influenced patient partner engagement in activities. The second category, shared and ongoing decision-making, described the decision-making process to determine patient partner engagement, timing of these decisions, and tools to support these decisions.

conclusionA dynamic, systematic and shared decision-making approach to determining patient partners' roles in the research process has the potential to support meaningful engagement and maximize benefits. Because the research process may evolve over time and patient partners situations can change, there may be a need to renegotiate the patient partner's role.

Indexed as

Decision makingPatient engagementPatient participationResearch methodsReviewStakeholder participation

Identifiers

PMID39696699
PMCPMC11653694

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.