“I think there has to be a mutual respect for there to be value”: Evaluating patient engagement in a national clinical trial on de-implementation of low value care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The evaluation of patient engagement in research is understudied and under-reported, making it difficult to know what engagement strategies work best and when. We provide the results of an evaluation of patient engagement in a large Canadian research program focused on the de-implementation of low-value care. We aimed to evaluate the experience and impact of patient engagement in the study. Methods An online cross-sectional survey was administered using Microsoft Forms to (1) researchers and study staff and (2) patient partners. The survey was developed following iterative reviews by the project’s patient partnership council and evaluation committee. Survey content areas included opinions on patient engagement to date, including challenges to engagement and suggestions for improvement. Patient partners also evaluated the partnership council. Descriptive statistics including counts and percentages described Likert scale survey items, while open comments were analyzed using descriptive content analysis. Results The survey response rate was 46% (17/37). There were positive attitudes about the value of patient engagement in this project. There was also a high degree of willingness to be involved with patient engagement in future projects, whether as a patient partner or as a researcher including patients on the research team. Most patient partners felt their contributions to the project were valued by researchers and study research staff. Open comments revealed that a co-design approach and full inclusion on the research team were integral to demonstrating the value of patient partner input. Areas for improvement included more frequent and ongoing communication among all team members, as well as earlier training about patient engagement, particularly addressing role expectations and role clarity. Conclusions Our data revealed that despite some challenges, team members recognized the value of patient engagement in research and agreed project decisions had been impacted by patient partner input. Ongoing communication was highlighted as an area for improvement, as well as earlier training and ongoing support for all team members, but particularly researchers and study staff. In response to evaluation data, the team has reinstated a quarterly newsletter and plans to use specific patient engagement planning templates across study sites for all project activities. These tools should help make expectations clear for all team members and contribute to a positive patient engagement experience. Findings can inform patient engagement planning and evaluation for other health research projects.
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 | 0.205 | 0.263 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".