Evidence mapPaperPMID 42548976Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2026

The costs of partner engagement in research: Opportunities for pragmatic research, implementation science, and the science of engagement.

Liza M Creel, John Cronin, Daniel D Matlock, Russell E Glasgow, Samantha Rubio, Monica Perez Jolles

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 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

6 authors.

Liza M CreelDivision of Health Care Policy and Research, Department of Medicine, Adult & Child Center for Outcomes Research & Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1222-678X
John CroninAdult & Child Center for Outcomes Research & Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
Daniel D MatlockDivision of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, Adult & Child Center for Outcomes Research & Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
Russell E GlasgowDepartment of Family Medicine, Adult & Child Center for Outcomes Research & Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
Samantha RubioAdult & Child Center for Outcomes Research & Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
Monica Perez JollesDepartment of Pediatrics, Adult & Child Center for Outcomes Research & Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is growing emphasis on the importance of active partner engagement in research and the design, planning, and implementation of new programs. Indeed, the science of engagement is gaining is receiving more attention from researchers, being formally included in research studies more often, and increasingly being required by funders. Financial costs and economic implications are well-known drivers of successful adoption, implementation, and sustainment of evidence-based programs; however, partner engagement costs are often excluded from economic evaluations even when elements of engagement may be relevant to sustainment and replication. Resource constraints in both research and practice highlight the need to better understand engagement costs to ensure that scarce resources are put towards the richest engagement activities. As part of the Rapid and Rigorous Patient-Centered Program (R2P2) in Colorado, we designed an approach to systematically document and analyze partner engagement costs across four prototype projects. We describe this approach, summarize needed adaptations, share an interactive data collection template, synthesize the relevant engagement costs during implementation, replication, and sustainment, and discuss lessons learned. Our experiences in R2P2 in costing initial engagement activities across four diverse projects offer direction for future research and practice that balances high-quality partner engagement with efficiency in addressing resource constraints facing researchers and practitioners.

Indexed as

costeconomic evaluationimplementation sciencepartner engagementpragmatic research

Identifiers

PMID42548976
PMCPMC13430481

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-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.