Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41316501›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2025

Identifying challenges and enablers to engaging patients in preclinical laboratory research: an interview study.

Madison Foster, Dean A Fergusson, Emily Thompson, Victoria Hunniford, Talston Scott, Stephen Daniels, Dawn P Richards, Pat Messner, Kathryn Hendrick, Patrick Sullivan and 10 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

20 authors.

Madison FosterMethodological & Implementation Research and Acute Care Research Programs, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, PO Box 201B, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada.
Dean A FergussonMethodological & Implementation Research and Acute Care Research Programs, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, PO Box 201B, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada. dafergusson@ohri.ca.
Emily ThompsonMethodological & Implementation Research and Acute Care Research Programs, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, PO Box 201B, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada.
Victoria HunnifordMethodological & Implementation Research and Acute Care Research Programs, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, PO Box 201B, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada.
Talston ScottMethodological & Implementation Research and Acute Care Research Programs, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, PO Box 201B, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada.
Stephen DanielsMethodological & Implementation Research and Acute Care Research Programs, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, PO Box 201B, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada.
Dawn P RichardsPatient Partner, Five02 Labs Incorporated, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Pat MessnerPatient Partner, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Kathryn HendrickPatient Partner, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Patrick SullivanPatient Partner, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Asher A MendelsonSection of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Kimberly F MacalaDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Royal Alexandra Hospital, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Kirsten M FiestDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary & Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Angela M CrawleyInflammation and Chronic Disease Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Bernard ThébaudRegenerative Medicine Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Stuart G NichollsOttawa Methods Centre, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Cheryle A SéguinDepartment of Physiology and Pharmacology, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Grace FoxMethodological & Implementation Research and Acute Care Research Programs, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, PO Box 201B, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada.
Justin PresseauMethodological & Implementation Research and Acute Care Research Programs, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, PO Box 201B, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada.
Manoj M LaluMethodological & Implementation Research and Acute Care Research Programs, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, PO Box 201B, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada. mlalu@toh.ca.

Funding

Canadian Stem Cell Network TST-C4R1-3CIHR 470957
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient engagement in research enriches study design, conduct, and dissemination by integrating lived experiences of patients into the research process. Although patient engagement is becoming more popular in clinical research settings, it remains comparatively rare in preclinical (i.e. laboratory based) research. To explore this gap, we conducted an interview study to understand how researchers and patients have implemented patient engagement in this area, focusing on the challenges and benefits of their approach.

methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews of patients (n = 15) and researchers (n = 14) with previous preclinical patient engagement experience. Interviews were transcribed and reviewed using an inductive, thematic content analysis, which allowed for bottom-up analysis of interview data. Our team identified, reviewed and refined emerging themes. Our team members include preclinical, clinical and patient engagement researchers and patient partners, which allowed for various perspectives to contribute to the final interpretation of the findings and drafting of the manuscript.

resultsWe identified five themes. Theme 1: Researchers and patients highlighted the necessity to adopt a thoughtful and tailored approach for each preclinical engagement initiative. This includes taking time to cultivate personal relationships and co-developing engagement activities to meet patient and researcher preferences and needs. Theme 2: Clear communication was deemed critical, suggesting the need for a clear and shared vocabulary without technical jargon. Theme 3: Varied goals for engagement in preclinical research between researchers and patients were underscored, indicating the need to discuss aims and motivations early and often as well as to co-develop mutually beneficial strategies. Theme 4: Researchers and patients also discussed how their communities require a better understanding of the value of preclinical patient engagement. This could be fostered through education and illustrative case examples. Theme 5: Finally, a shift in research culture was deemed necessary and called for stronger institutional support, efficient channels to connect preclinical researchers and patients, as well as initiatives that recognize and champion preclinical patient engagement.

conclusionOur study identified five common themes in preclinical patient engagement which can help the research community facilitate meaningful engagement of patients in preclinical laboratory research.

Indexed as

LaboratoryPatient and public involvementPatient engagementPatientsPPIPreclinicalResearch

Identifiers

PMID41316501
PMCPMC12723845

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.