MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412822797 · doi:10.1016/j.qrmh.2025.100016

How to become partners. Ways to enhance the quality of patient and public involvement in healthcare research

2025· editorial· en· W4412822797 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Elna Leth Pedersen, Hanne Agerskov, Torkell Ellingsen, Connie Timmermann

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Research in Medicine & Healthcare · 2025
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOdense UniversitetshospitalArthritis SocietySyddansk UniversitetGigtforeningen
KeywordsNegotiationContext (archaeology)Flexibility (engineering)Relevance (law)Quality (philosophy)Health careQualitative researchPublic relationsGeneral partnershipProcess (computing)PsychologyKnowledge managementSociologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a growing emphasis on involving patients and the public in healthcare research. This is especially true in qualitative healthcare research, where partnerships are encouraged between patients with lived experiences and researchers with academic expertise. The rationale is that collaboration can enhance the study's relevance to healthcare users and improve the research quality. However, establishing partnerships can be complex and challenging, requiring negotiation and alignment of expectations. In a qualitative study exploring communication in clinical encounters at a Danish university hospital, we invited patients and relatives to become involved in research. This commentary discusses the challenges, insights, and adjustments to our research design that emerged from the process. Through continuous dialogues with various patients and relatives, we, as researchers, gained a deeper understanding of how to make our research relevant to patients and relatives and how to approach involving patients and relatives in our research. By emphasizing the significance of these dialogues, we aim to demonstrate how aligning expectations and building partnerships with patients and relatives resulted in valuable learning experiences for the researchers and considerably impacted the study's design. Furthermore, we want to highlight that building partnerships requires time, flexibility, and a mutual learning approach to negotiate and align expectations effectively. In this commentary we first review the practice of involving patients and the public in healthcare research and provide an overview of the study's context. Next, we outline our efforts to negotiate and align expectations with patients and relatives, highlighting how new insights led to adjustments to the research design. Finally, we address challenges and the requirements researchers face when involving patients and the public in research partnerships.

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)0.273
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.324
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2730.324
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0230.058
Scholarly communication0.0440.091
Open science0.0060.046
Research integrity0.0280.029
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.012

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 head0.715
GPT teacher head0.704
Teacher spread0.012 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreEditorial

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Research in Medicine & HealthcareSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207