MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405543041 · doi:10.1186/s40900-024-00664-1

Establishing patient partners’ roles on research teams: a scoping review

2024· review· en· W4405543041 on OpenAlexaffabout
Georgia Tobiano, Brigid M. Gillespie, Joan Carlini, Rachel Muir, Jananee Rasiah, Ching Shan Wan, Tamara L. McCarron, Karen A. Moffat, Sepideh Jahandideh, Wendy Chaboyer

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Involvement and Engagement · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health ServicesMacEwan University
FundersNational Health and Medical Research Council
KeywordsPsychologyKnowledge managementEngineering ethicsProcess managementEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There 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. A 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. A 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. A 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. Patient partners can undertake various roles in the research process. International guidelines recommend patient partners and researchers work together to decide how patient partners will be involved in the research and there are many activities patient partners can do to enact their role. This review describes how these decisions are made and what shapes them. We reviewed 45 English-language research studies and commentaries on the views of patient partners and researchers that described patient partners’ and researchers’ approaches to determining patient partners’ roles in the research process. Most of these studies were from the United Kingdom and Canada, with patient partners generally having chronic illness experience. We found that patient partner roles evolved throughout the study, with many factors affecting this process. Determining the patient partner role was dynamic, with reflection, discussion and negotiation occurring throughout the research process. The review suggests the need for both patient partners and researchers to together make decisions about their respective roles.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.182
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.362
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1820.362
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.008
Bibliometrics0.0360.042
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0150.017
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.836
GPT teacher head0.672
Teacher spread0.165 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Involvement and EngagementSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207