Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42361265›Full record

ArticleJournal of participatory medicine2026

Using Partner-Driven Maximum Variance Sampling to Form a Lived Experience Panel: Step-by-Step Tutorial.

Anna Jolliff, Teresa Thuemling, Jessica Arora, Geri L Baumblatt, Daniel J Digmann, Ursulá T Garcia-Mayes, Misty Hawkins, Sydney Hoel, Heather Janes, Nicole Orendain and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of participatory medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

15 authors.

Anna JolliffCenter for Research and Innovation in Systems Safety, Department of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2525 West End Avenue, Suite 800, Nashville, TN, 37203, United States, 1 615-421-4210.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5099-1469
Teresa ThuemlingCenter for Research and Innovation in Systems Safety, Department of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2525 West End Avenue, Suite 800, Nashville, TN, 37203, United States, 1 615-421-4210.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0065-5886
Jessica AroraDepartment of Systems and Information Engineering, School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3544-3242
Geri L BaumblattRush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0003-8028
Daniel J DigmannCommunity Partner, Charlottesville, VA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-0681-9203
Ursulá T Garcia-MayesHIS AhMayesIng Grace LLC, Duluth, GA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-2773-2776
Misty HawkinsDepartment of Applied Health Science, School of Public Health, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3825-639X
Sydney HoelCenter for Research and Innovation in Systems Safety, Department of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2525 West End Avenue, Suite 800, Nashville, TN, 37203, United States, 1 615-421-4210.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5920-3174
Heather JanesMonarch Dementia Caregiver Services, Pierre, SD, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-9442-8976
Nicole OrendainCommunity Partner, Charlottesville, VA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-1638-7374
Alan RichmondCommunity-Campus Partnerships for Health, Raleigh, NC, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6839-5665
Aracely RosalesCommunity Partner, Charlottesville, VA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-4127-7943
Pete WendelCommunity Partner, Charlottesville, VA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2562-957X
Nicole E Werner *Center for Research and Innovation in Systems Safety, Department of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2525 West End Avenue, Suite 800, Nashville, TN, 37203, United States, 1 615-421-4210.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2363-9491
Rupa S Valdez *Department of Systems and Information Engineering, School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5125-0793

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Unlabelled: Research projects conducted in collaboration with patients and caregivers are more rigorous, relevant, and impactful within the communities of focus. One mechanism for facilitating patient and caregiver engagement in research is through a lived experience panel (LEP)-an intentionally assembled group of people with personal experience relevant to the research topic. LEPs can engage in any or all aspects of the research project, from study ideation to participant recruitment to dissemination and translation of findings. Fully realizing the potential of an LEP to inform the research process requires intentionality in LEP composition, as members should align with the range of lived experiences in the community of focus. Mechanisms to recruit patient or caregiver advisors for research may require researchers to reach beyond pre-existing relationships if they intend to achieve maximum variability. However, explicit processes for forming a maximally variable LEP are scarce. In this guide, we outline an LEP formation process that includes laying the foundation for recruitment with academic and community partners; collaboratively developing promotional materials and an interest survey; using community-embedded promotional channels to share information about the LEP opportunity; and selecting interviewees and LEP invitees using a process called maximum variance sampling. Outcomes of our LEP formation process include the relative productivity of each promotional channel, the specific timeline from LEP ideation to formation, the sociodemographic variability of our applicants, and real LEP members' feedback on the formation process. We conclude by highlighting what we perceive as keys to success, including collaboration with trusted community partners and a thoughtfully designed interest survey that enabled us to narrow a large applicant pool to a diverse set of invitees. We also describe challenges and lessons learned, including opportunities to better articulate LEP responsibilities during interviews and ways to navigate the tensions inherent in selecting members based on maximum variance. Researchers are encouraged to invest time and resources into building relationships with community partners, knowing that these relationships lay the groundwork for reaching diverse patients and caregivers to advise research.

Indexed as

advisory boardfamily caregiverslived experience panelmaximum variance samplingpatient engagementtutorial

Identifiers

PMID42361265
PMCPMC13308908

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.