View Item 

Show simple item record

Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework
dc.contributor.authorShippee, Nathan D.en_US
dc.contributor.authorDomecq Garces, Juan Pabloen_US
dc.contributor.authorPrutsky Lopez, Gabriela J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorWang, Zhenen_US
dc.contributor.authorElraiyah, Tarig A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorNabhan, Mohammeden_US
dc.contributor.authorBrito, Juan P.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBoehmer, Kaseyen_US
dc.contributor.authorHasan, Rimen_US
dc.contributor.authorFirwana, Belalen_US
dc.contributor.authorErwin, Patricia J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMontori, Victor M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMurad, M Hassanen_US
dc.date.accessioned2015-10-07T20:42:57Z
dc.date.available2016-12-01T14:33:06Zen
dc.date.issued2015-10en_US
dc.identifier.citationShippee, Nathan D.; Domecq Garces, Juan Pablo; Prutsky Lopez, Gabriela J.; Wang, Zhen; Elraiyah, Tarig A.; Nabhan, Mohammed; Brito, Juan P.; Boehmer, Kasey; Hasan, Rim; Firwana, Belal; Erwin, Patricia J.; Montori, Victor M.; Murad, M Hassan (2015). "Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework." Health Expectations 18(5): 1151-1166.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1369-6513en_US
dc.identifier.issn1369-7625en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/113737
dc.description.abstractBackgroundThere is growing attention towards increasing patient and service user engagement (PSUE) in biomedical and health services research. Existing variations in language and design inhibit reporting and indexing, which are crucial to comparative effectiveness in determining best practices.ObjectiveThis paper utilizes a systematic review and environmental scan to derive an evidence‐based framework for PSUE.DesignA metanarrative systematic review and environmental scan/manual search using scientific databases and other search engines, along with feedback from a patient advisory group (PAG).Eligible sourcesEnglish‐language studies, commentaries, grey literature and other sources (including systematic and non‐systematic reviews) pertaining to patient and public involvement in biomedical and health services research.Data extractedStudy description (e.g. participant demographics, research setting) and design, if applicable; frameworks, conceptualizations or planning schemes for PSUE‐related endeavours; and methods for PSUE initiation and gathering patients'/service users' input or contributions.ResultsOverall, 202 sources were included and met eligibility criteria; 41 of these presented some framework or conceptualization of PSUE. Sources were synthesized into a two‐part framework for PSUE: (i) integral PSUE components include patient and service user initiation, reciprocal relationships, colearning and re‐assessment and feedback, (ii) sources describe PSUE at several research stages, within three larger phases: preparatory, execution and translational.Discussion and ConclusionsEfforts at developing a solid evidence base on PSUE are limited by the non‐standard and non‐empirical nature of much of the literature. Our proposed two‐part framework provides a standard structure and language for reporting and indexing to support comparative effectiveness and optimize PSUE.en_US
dc.publisherRoyal College of Nursing, University of Warwick, and UK Clinical Research Collaborative, Studies SoHSen_US
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.en_US
dc.subject.otherpatient and public involvementen_US
dc.subject.otherpatient engagementen_US
dc.subject.othersystematic reviewen_US
dc.titlePatient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized frameworken_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPublic Healthen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/113737/1/hex12090.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/hex.12090en_US
dc.identifier.sourceHealth Expectationsen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWright JG, Young NL. The patient‐specific index: asking patients what they want. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume, 1997; 79: 974 – 983.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGarcia CM, Gilchrist L, Campesino C, Raymond N, Naughton S, de Patino JG. Using community‐based participatory research to develop a bilingual mental health survey for Latinos. Progress in Community Health Partnerships, 2008; 2: 105 – 120.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCashman SB, Adeky S, Allen AJ III et al. The power and the promise: working with communities to analyze data, interpret findings, and get to outcomes. American Journal of Public Health, 2008; 98: 1407 – 1417.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcCauley LA, Beltran M, Phillips J, Lasarev M, Sticker D. The Oregon migrant farmworker community: an evolving model for participatory research. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2001; 109 ( Suppl. 3 ): 449 – 455.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCotterell P. Exploring the value of service user involvement in data analysis: ‘Our interpretation is about what lies below the surface'. Educational Action Research, 2008; 16: 5 – 17.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChalmers I. What do I want from health research and researchers when I am a patient? BMJ, 1995; 310: 1315 – 1318.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSeifer SD, Sisco S. Mining the challenges of CBPR for improvements in urban health. Journal of urban health: bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 2006; 83: 981 – 984.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRoe KM, Minkler M, Saunders FF. Combining research, advocacy, and education: the methods of the Grandparent Caregiver Study. Health Education Quarterly, 1995; 22: 458 – 475.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencevan Wersch A, Eccles M. Involvement of consumers in the development of evidence based clinical guidelines: practical experiences from the North of England evidence based guideline development programme. Quality in health care: QHC, 2001; 10: 10 – 16.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSayers J. Clinical trial registries: a survey of patient advocate group perceptions. Drug Information Journal, 2009; 2: 195 – 200.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFreysteinson WM. The ethical community consultation model as preparation for nursing research: a case study. Nursing Ethics, 2010; 6: 749 – 758.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencevan Staa T‐P, Leufkens HG, Zhang B, Smeeth L. A comparison of cost effectiveness using data from randomized trials or actual clinical practice: selective cox‐2 inhibitors as an example. PLoS Medicine, 2009; 6: e1000194.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceInvolvement Team: NHS County Durham and Darlington. Patient & Public Involvement Toolkit: a quick guide to support healthcare commissioners. NHS, 2011 Report. Available at: http://www.darlington.gov.uk/PublicMinutes/Health%20and%20Partnerships%20Scrutiny%20Committee/February52014%202012/Appendix%205%20-%20Appendix%205.pdf, accessed 22 May 2013.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePotvin L, Cargo M, McComber AM, Delormier T, Macaulay AC. Implementing participatory intervention and research in communities: lessons from the Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project in Canada. Social Science & Medicine, 2003; 56: 1295 – 1305.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceButterfoss FD. Process evaluation for community participation. Annual Review of Public Health, 2006; 27: 323 – 340.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceThurston WE, Vollman AR, Meadows LM, Rutherford E. Public participation for women's health: strange bedfellows or partners in a cause? Health Care for Women International, 2005; 26: 398 – 421.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceThurston WE, MacKean G, Vollman A et al. Public participation in regional health policy: a theoretical framework. Health Policy, 2005; 73: 237 – 252.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNtshanga SP, Ngcobo PS, Mabaso ML. Establishment of a Community Advisory Board (CAB) for tuberculosis control and research in the Inanda, Ntuzuma and KwaMashu (INK) area of KwaZulu‐Natal, South Africa. Health Policy, 2010; 2–3: 211 – 215.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLegare F, Boivin A, van der Weijden T et al. Patient and public involvement in clinical practice guidelines: a knowledge synthesis of existing programs. Medical Decision Making, 2011; 31: E45 – E74.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGuyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction‐GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2011; 64: 383 – 394.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP et al. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. CMAJ, 2010; 182: E839 – E842.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShiffman RN, Dixon J, Brandt C et al. The GuideLine Implementability Appraisal (GLIA): development of an instrument to identify obstacles to guideline implementation. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 2005; 5: 23. doi: 10.1186/1472‐6947‐5‐23en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKreis J, Puhan MA, Schunemann HJ, Dickersin K. Consumer involvement in systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. Health Expectations, 2012; doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00722.x [Epub ahead of print]en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencevan de Bovenkamp HM, Trappenburg MJ. Reconsidering patient participation in guideline development. Health Care Analysis, 2009; 3: 198 – 216.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceACOR.org. Association of Cancer Online Resources, 2012. Available at: http://www.acor.org/pages/faqs, accessed 22 May 2013.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNHS. National Institute for Health Research, 2012. Available at: http://www.nihr.ac.uk/Pages/default.aspx, accessed 22 May 2013.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencelindalliance.org. The James Lind Alliance, 2012. Available at: http://www.lindalliance.org/, accessed 22 May 2013.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencethepatientpartnerproject.org. The PatientPartner project, 2012. Available at: http://www.thepatientpartnerproject.org/, accessed 22 May 2013.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOliver S, Clarke‐Jones L, Rees RW et al. Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: developing n evidence‐based approach. Health Technology Assessment, 2004; 8: 1 – 148.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCancer Australia and Cancer Voices Australia. National Framework for Consumer Involvement in Cancer Control. Canberra, Australia: Cancer Australia, 2011.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStaley K. Exploring Impact: Public involvement in NHS, Public Health and Social Care Research. Eastleigh, UK: INVOLVE‐National Health Service‐National Institute for Health Research, 2009.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTelford R, Faulkner A. Learning about service user involvement in mental health research. Journal of Mental Health, 2004; 13: 549 – 559.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMarsden J, Bradburn J; Clinical TCAGf; Macmillan CLJ. Patient and clinician collaboration in the design of a national randomized breast cancer trial. Health Expectations, 2004; 1: 6 – 17.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAbma TA, Nierse CJ, Widdershoven GAM. Patients as partners in responsive research: methodological notions for collaborations in mixed research teams. Qualitative Health Research, 2009; 19: 401 – 415.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceO'Donnell M, Entwistle V. Consumer involvement in decisions about what health‐related research is funded. Health Policy, 2004; 70: 281 – 290.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencepatientslikeme. patientslikeme [12/1/2011]. Available at: http://www.patientslikeme.com, accessed 22 May 2013.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBoivin A, Currie K, Fervers B et al. Patient and public involvement in clinical guidelines: international experiences and future perspectives. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 2010; 19: 1 – 4.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAbma TA, Broerse JEW. Patient participation as dialogue: setting research agendas. Health Expectations, 2010; 13: 160 – 173.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAli K, Roffe C, Crome P. What patients want. Stroke, 2006; 37: 865 – 871.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTong A, Sainsbury P, Carter SM et al. Patients' priorities for health research: focus group study of patients with chronic kidney disease. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, 2008; 23: 3206 – 3214.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShea B, Santesso N, Qualman A et al. Consumer‐driven health care: building partnerships in research. Health Expectations, 2005; 8: 352 – 359.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGreenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O, Peacock R. Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta‐narrative approach to systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 2005; 61: 417 – 430.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAndejeski Y, Bisceglio IT, Dickersin K et al. Quantitative impact of including consumers in the scientific review of breast cancer research proposals. Journal of Women's Health & Gender‐Based Medicine, 2002; 11: 379 – 388.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFaulkner A, Thomas P. User‐led research and evidence‐based medicine. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 2002; 180: 1 – 3.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGooberman‐Hill R, Horwood J, Calnan M. Citizens' juries in planning research priorities: process, engagement and outcome. Health Expectations, 2008; 11: 272 – 281.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDonovan JL, Brindle L, Mills N. Capturing users' experiences of participating in cancer trials. European Journal Cancer Care (Engl), 2002; 11: 210 – 214.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWhite MA, Verhoef MJ. Toward a patient‐centered approach: incorporating principles of participatory action research into clinical studies. Integrative Cancer Therapies, 2005; 4: 21 – 24.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Seers K, Herron‐Marx S, Bayliss H. The PIRICOM Study: A Systematic Review of the Conceptualisation, Measurement, Impact and Outcomes of Patients and Public Involvement in Health and Social Care Research. Warwick: Royal College of Nursing, University of Warwick, and UK Clinical Research Collaborative, Studies SoHS, 2010.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceThompson J, Barber R, Ward PR et al. Health researchers' attitudes towards public involvement in health research. Health Expectations, 2009; 12: 209 – 220.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBogart LM, Uyeda KE. Community‐based participatory research. Health Psychology, 2009; 28: 391 – 393.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCaron‐Flinterman JF, Broerse JEW, Bunders JFG. The experiential knowledge of patients: a new resource for biomedical research? Social Science & Medicine, 2005; 60: 2575 – 2584.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNierse CJ, Schipper K, van Zadelhoff E, van de Griendt J, Abma TA. Collaboration and co‐ownership in research: dynamics and dialogues between patient research partners and professional researchers in a research team. Health Expectations, 2011; 15: 242 – 254.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHowe A, MacDonald H, Barrett B, Little B. Ensuring public and patient participation in research: a case study in infrastructure development in one UK Research and Development consortium. Primary Health Care Research and Development, 2006; 7: 60 – 67. Epub 31 Oct 2006.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceINVOLVE. July 2012 [cited 2012]. http://www.invo.org.uk/, accessed 22 May 2013.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHanley B, Truesdale A, King A, Elbourne D, Chalmers I. Involving consumers in designing, conducting, and interpreting randomised controlled trials: questionnaire survey. BMJ, 2001; 322: 519 – 523.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBoote J, Telford R, Cooper C. Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda. Health Policy, 2002; 61: 213 – 236.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcKevitt C, Fudge N, Wolfe C. What is involvement in research and what does it achieve? Reflections on a pilot study of the personal costs of stroke. Health Expectations, 2010; 13: 86 – 94.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHewlett S, de Wit M, Richards P et al. Patients and professionals as research partners: challenges, practicalities, and benefits. Arthritis Care & Research, 2006; 55: 676 – 680.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWhitstock MT. Seeking evidence from medical research consumers as part of the medical research process could improve the uptake of research evidence. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 2003; 9: 213 – 224.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWright D, Foster C, Amir Z, Elliott J, Wilson R. Critical appraisal guidelines for assessing the quality and impact of user involvement in research. Health Expectations, 2010; 13: 359 – 368.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDewar BJ. Beyond tokenistic involvement of older people in research – a framework for future development and understanding. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 2005; 14: 48 – 53.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHubbard G, Kidd L, Donaghy E, McDonald C, Kearney N. A review of literature about involving people affected by cancer in research, policy and planning and practice. Patient Education and Counseling, 2007; 65: 21 – 33.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFaridi Z, Grunbaum JA, Sajor Grey B, Franks A, Simoes E. Community‐based participatory research: necessary next steps. Preventing Chronic Disease, 2007; 4: A70.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBennetts W, Cross W, Bloomer M. Understanding consumer participation in mental health: issues of power and change. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 2011; 20: 155 – 164.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChambers R, Brien LM, Linnell S, Sharp S. Why don't health researchers report consumer involvement? Quality in Primary Care, 2004; 12: 151 – 157.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShared Decision Making National Resource Center. Patient Advisory Group: Mayo Clinic; 2012 [08/02/2012]. Available from: http://shareddecisions.mayoclinic.org/stakeholders/diabetes-advisory-group/, accessed 22 May 2013.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLindenmeyer A, Hearnshaw H, Sturt J, Ormerod R, Aitchison G. Assessment of the benefits of user involvement in health research from the Warwick Diabetes Care Research User Group: a qualitative case study. Health Expectations, 2007; 10: 268 – 277.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMorin SF, Morfit S, Maiorana A et al. Building community partnerships: case studies of Community Advisory Boards at research sites in Peru, Zimbabwe, and Thailand. Clinical Trials, 2008; 2: 147 – 156.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMay M, Law J. CBPR as community health intervention: institutionalizing CBPR within community based organizations. Progress in Community Health Partnerships, 2008; 2: 145 – 155.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRedwood D, Lanier A, Kemberling M, Klejka J, Sylvester I, Lundgren K. Community‐based participatory research in a large cohort study of chronic diseases among Alaska native adults. Progress in Community Health Partnerships, 2010; 4: 325 – 330.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEvans S, Corley M, Corrie M, Costley K, Donald C. Evaluating services in partnership with older people: exploring the role of ‘community researchers’. Working with Older People: Community Care Policy & Practice, 2011; 15: 26 – 33.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJinks C, Ong BN, Neill TJO. The Keele community knee pain forum: action research to engage with stakeholders about the prevention of knee pain and disability. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 2009; 10: 85.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSwartz LJ, Callahan KA, Butz AM et al. Methods and issues in conducting a community‐based environmental randomized trial. Environmental Research, 2004; 95: 156 – 165.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStewart RJ, Caird J, Oliver K, Oliver S. Patients' and clinicians' research priorities. Health Expectations, 2011; 4: 439 – 448.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStewart MK, Colley D, Huff A et al. Participatory development and implementation of a community research workshop: experiences from a community‐based participatory research partnership. Progress in Community Health Partnerships, 2009; 3: 165 – 178.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCrowe JL, Keifer MC, Salazar MK. Striving to provide opportunities for farm worker community participation in research. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, 2008; 14: 205 – 219.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDecker M, Hemmerling A, Lankoande F. Women front and center: the opportunities of involving women in participatory health research worldwide. Journal of Women's Health (15409996), 2010; 19: 2109 – 2114.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDoyle M, Timonen V. Lessons from a community‐based participatory research project: older people's and researcher's reflections. Research on Aging, 2010; 32: 244 – 263.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFawcett SB, Suarez‐Balcazar Y, Balcazar FE et al. Conducting intervention research—the design and development process. In: Rothman J, Thomas EJ, (eds) Intervention research: Design and development for human service. New York: Haworth Pr, 1994.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMorrow E, Ross F, Grocott P, Bennett J. A model and measure for quality service user involvement in health research. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 2010; 34: 532 – 539.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTurner M, Beresford P. User Controlled Research: Its Meanings and Potential. Final Report 2005 Eastleigh, Hants, UK: Shaping Our Lives and the Centre for Citizen Participation, Brunel University, 2005 [cited 2013 April 1]. Available at: http://www.invo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/UserConRpt081205.pdf, accessed 22 May 2013.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOscos‐Sanchez MA, Lesser J, Kelly P. Cultural competence: a critical facilitator of success in community‐based participatory action research. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 2008; 2: 197 – 200.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAhmed SM, Palermo AGS. Community engagement in research: frameworks for education and peer review. American Journal of Public Health, 2010; 8: 1380 – 1387.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKarmaliani R, McFarlane J, Asad N et al. Applying community‐based participatory research methods to improve maternal and child health in Karachi, Pakistan. Nursing Outlook, 2009; 57: 204 – 209.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHarper GW, Salina DD. Building collaborative partnerships to improve community‐based HIV prevention research: the University‐CBO Collaborative partnership (UCCP) model. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 2000; 1: 1 – 20.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDanley KE, Ellison ML. A Handbook for Participatory Action Research. Boston: Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation Sargent College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences Boston University, 2005.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBecker AB, Israel BA, Allen AJ III. Instructions for conducting a force field analysis. In: Israel BA, Eng E, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Satcher D. (eds). Methods in Community‐Based Participatory Research for Health. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass, 2005.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBarnes M, Bennett G. Frail bodies, courageous voices: older people influencing community care. Health & Social Care in the Community, 1998; 6: 102 – 111.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOliver SR, Rees RW, Clarke‐Jones L et al. A multidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services research. Health Expectations, 2008; 1: 72 – 84.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHall V. Reflections on engaging in participatory research. Evidence Based Midwifery, 2009; 7: 40 – 45.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHappell B, Roper C. Consumer participation in mental health research: articulating a model to guide practice. Australasian Psychiatry, 2007; 3: 237 – 241.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGracia J, Blasco JA, Andradas E. A strategy for patient involvement in clinical practice guidelines: methodological approaches. BMJ Quality & Safety, 2011; 20: 779 – 784.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceIsrael BA, Krieger J, Vlahov D et al. Challenges and facilitating factors in sustaining community‐based participatory research partnerships: lessons learned from the Detroit, New York City and Seattle Urban Research Centers. Journal of Urban Health, 2006; 83: 1022 – 1040.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSaunders C, Crossing S, Girgis A, Butow P, Penman A. Operationalising a model framework for consumer and community participation in health and medical research. Aust New Zealand Health Policy, 2007; 4: 13.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNational Health and Medical Research Council. A Model Framework for Consumer and Community Participation in Health and Medical Research. Canberra: Australian Government, 2005.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWicks P, Vaughan TE, Massagli MP, Heywood J. Accelerated clinical discovery using self‐reported patient data collected online and a patient‐matching algorithm. Nature Biotechnology, 2011; 29: 411 – 414.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTweet MS, Gulati R, Aase LA, Hayes SN. Spontaneous coronary artery dissection: a disease‐specific, social networking community‐initiated study. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 2011; 86: 845 – 850.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChenoweth L, Kilstoff K. Facilitating positive changes in community dementia management through participatory action research. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 1998; 3: 175 – 188.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStaniszewska S, Jones N, Newburn M, Marshall S. User involvement in the development of a research bid: Barriers, enablers and impacts. Health Expectations, 2007; 10: 173 – 183.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLippman SA, Donini A, Diaz J, Chinaglia M, Reingold A, Kerrigan D. Social‐environmental factors and protective sexual behavior among sex workers: the Encontros intervention in Brazil. American Journal of Public Health, 2010; 100 ( Suppl. 1 ): S216 – S223.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEdwards V, Wyatt K, Logan S, Britten N. Consulting parents about the design of a randomized controlled trial of osteopathy for children with cerebral palsy. Health Expectations, 2011; 14: 429 – 438.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStaniszewska S, Brett J, Mockford C, Barber R. The GRIPP checklist: strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research. International Journal of Technology Assessmenten_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStaley K, Hanley B. Scoping research priority setting (and the presence of PPI in priority setting) with UK clinical research organisations and funders, 2008. Report. http://www.lindalliance.org/pdfs/JLA%20Internal%20Reports/TwoCan%20JLA%20report%20March%2009_with%20appendices.pdf, accessed 22 May 2013.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLovato LC, Hill K, Hertert S, Hunninghake DB, Probstfield JL. Recruitment for controlled clinical trials: literature summary and annotated bibliography. Controlled Clinical Trials, 1997; 18: 328 – 352.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePringle M, Churchill R. Randomised controlled trials in general practice. BMJ, 1995; 311: 1382 – 1383.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTognoni G, Alli C, Avanzini F et al. Randomised clinical trials in general practice: lessons from a failure. BMJ, 1991; 303: 969 – 971.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHussain‐Gambles M, Leese B, Atkin K, Brown J, Mason S, Tovey P. Involving South Asian patients in clinical trials. Health Technology Assessment, 2004; 8: iii 1 – 109.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSnowdon C, Garcia J, Elbourne D. Making sense of randomization; responses of parents of critically ill babies to random allocation of treatment in a clinical trial. Social Science & Medicine, 1997; 45: 1337 – 1355.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSnowdon C, Elbourne D, Garcia J. ‘It was a snap decision': parental and professional perspectives on the speed of decisions about participation in perinatal randomised controlled trials. Social Science & Medicine, 2006; 9: 2279 – 2290.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKelson MC. Consumer collaboration, patient‐defined outcomes and the preparation of Cochrane Reviews. Health Expectations, 1999; 2: 129 – 135.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWhitley R, Goldman HH. Letters: client involvement in services research. Psychiatric Services, 2005; 56: 1315.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
hex12090.pdf
Size:
262.0KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.