Patient partners’ perspectives of meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews: A patient‐oriented rapid review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A growing literature describes promising practices for patient-oriented research (POR) generally; however, those for systematic reviews are largely derived through the lens of a researcher. This rapid review sought to understand meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews from the patient partner (PP) perspective. DESIGN: The review team comprised PPs, librarians, SCPOR staff and academic faculty. We searched OVID MEDLINE and EMBASE, ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health, and core POR websites. Documents describing PP reflections on their involvement in synthesis reviews were included. Screening and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. Thematic analysis was employed to identify themes in the data regarding PP perceptions of engagement in synthesis reviews. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 1386 citations. Eight journal articles and one blog post were included. Seven studies focused on conducting systematic reviews on a particular health or patient-related topic to which PP involvement was an important part and two studies focused specifically on the experience of including PP in synthesis reviews. PPs engaged in the review process through a variety of mechanisms, levels and stages of the review process. Three major themes emerged from the data: (1) foster partnerships through team development, (2) provide opportunities for outcomes valued by PP and (3) strengthen the research endeavour. CONCLUSION: Fostering partnerships through team development is foundational for meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews. It requires sensitively balancing of various needs (eg overburdening with contributions). Meaningful involvement in reviews has both personal and research benefits. PATIENT INVOLVEMENT: Patient partners were equal collaborators in all aspects of the review.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.524 | 0.732 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".