Methods to Generate Innovative Research Ideas and Improve Patient and Public Involvement in Modern Epidemiological Research: Review, Patient Viewpoint, and Guidelines for Implementation of a Digital Cohort Study

Gloria A Aguayo, Catherine Goetzinger, Renza Scibilia, Aurélie Fischer, Till Seuring, Viet-Thi Tran, Philippe Ravaud, Tamás Bereczky, Laetitia Huiart, Guy Fagherazzi, Gloria A Aguayo, Catherine Goetzinger, Renza Scibilia, Aurélie Fischer, Till Seuring, Viet-Thi Tran, Philippe Ravaud, Tamás Bereczky, Laetitia Huiart, Guy Fagherazzi

Abstract

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research aims to increase the quality and relevance of research by incorporating the perspective of those ultimately affected by the research. Despite these potential benefits, PPI is rarely included in epidemiology protocols.

Objective: The aim of this study is to provide an overview of methods used for PPI and offer practical recommendations for its efficient implementation in epidemiological research.

Methods: We conducted a review on PPI methods. We mirrored it with a patient advocate's viewpoint about PPI. We then identified key steps to optimize PPI in epidemiological research based on our review and the viewpoint of the patient advocate, taking into account the identification of barriers to, and facilitators of, PPI. From these, we provided practical recommendations to launch a patient-centered cohort study. We used the implementation of a new digital cohort study as an exemplary use case.

Results: We analyzed data from 97 studies, of which 58 (60%) were performed in the United Kingdom. The most common methods were workshops (47/97, 48%); surveys (33/97, 34%); meetings, events, or conferences (28/97, 29%); focus groups (25/97, 26%); interviews (23/97, 24%); consensus techniques (8/97, 8%); James Lind Alliance consensus technique (7/97, 7%); social media analysis (6/97, 6%); and experience-based co-design (3/97, 3%). The viewpoint of a patient advocate showed a strong interest in participating in research. The most usual PPI modalities were research ideas (60/97, 62%), co-design (42/97, 43%), defining priorities (31/97, 32%), and participation in data analysis (25/97, 26%). We identified 9 general recommendations and 32 key PPI-related steps that can serve as guidelines to increase the relevance of epidemiological studies.

Conclusions: PPI is a project within a project that contributes to improving knowledge and increasing the relevance of research. PPI methods are mainly used for idea generation. On the basis of our review and case study, we recommend that PPI be included at an early stage and throughout the research cycle and that methods be combined for generation of new ideas. For e-cohorts, the use of digital tools is essential to scale up PPI. We encourage investigators to rely on our practical recommendations to extend PPI in future epidemiological studies.

Keywords: co-design; digital cohort study; digital epidemiology; focus groups; mobile phone; patient and public involvement; social media; surveys; workshops.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©Gloria A Aguayo, Catherine Goetzinger, Renza Scibilia, Aurélie Fischer, Till Seuring, Viet-Thi Tran, Philippe Ravaud, Tamás Bereczky, Laetitia Huiart, Guy Fagherazzi. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 23.12.2021.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Number of fields or areas (ie, 1 field=involved in research ideas and 2 fields=research ideas and co-design) in which patients, carers, or the public were involved (y-axis); number of methods (circles); and countries (colors) where the studies were performed from 2000 to 2020 (x-axis). Patient and public involvement increases over time and at different stages of involvement. The size of each circle represents the number of methods used for patient and public involvement. Circles representing a combination of methods are very common in recently published studies. The most represented country is the United Kingdom.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Patient and public involvement in the research cycle of a digital cohort study. Digital tools are integrated at each stage of the research cycle, and some examples of digital tools are shown in the figure.

References

    1. Tips sheet: recruiting members of the public to get involved in research funding and commissioning processes. INVOLVE - National Institute for Health Research. 2012. [2019-11-20]. .
    1. What is patient and public involvement and public engagement? National Institute for Health Research. 2020. [2021-12-07]. .
    1. Trish Greenhalgh: towards an institute for patient-led research. The BMJ Opinion. 2019. [2021-12-07].
    1. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gülmezoglu AM, Howells DW, Ioannidis JP, Oliver S. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014 Jan 11;383(9912):156–65. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1.S0140-6736(13)62229-1
    1. Crocker JC, Ricci-Cabello I, Parker A, Hirst JA, Chant A, Petit-Zeman S, Evans D, Rees S. Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br Med J. 2018 Nov 28;363:k4738. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k4738.
    1. Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, Suleman R. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2014 Oct;17(5):637–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x.
    1. Hayes H, Buckland S, Tarpey M. Briefing Notes for Researchers: Public Involvement in NHS, Public Health and Social Care Research. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2012.
    1. Salathé M. Digital epidemiology: what is it, and where is it going? Life Sci Soc Policy. 2018 Jan 04;14(1):1. doi: 10.1186/s40504-017-0065-7. 10.1186/s40504-017-0065-7
    1. Fagherazzi G, Ravaud P. Digital diabetes: perspectives for diabetes prevention, management and research. Diabetes Metab. 2019 Sep;45(4):322–9. doi: 10.1016/j.diabet.2018.08.012.S1262-3636(18)30171-X
    1. Boote J, Baird W, Beecroft C. Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: a narrative review of case examples. Health Policy. 2010 Apr;95(1):10–23. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.11.007.S0168-8510(09)00292-9
    1. Harris J, Haltbakk J, Dunning T, Austrheim G, Kirkevold M, Johnson M, Graue M. How patient and community involvement in diabetes research influences health outcomes: a realist review. Health Expect. 2019 Oct;22(5):907–20. doi: 10.1111/hex.12935.
    1. Price A, Schroter S, Snow R, Hicks M, Harmston R, Staniszewska S, Parker S, Richards T. Frequency of reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research studies published in a general medical journal: a descriptive study. BMJ Open. 2018 Dec 23;8(3):e020452. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020452. bmjopen-2017-020452
    1. Biddle MS, Gibson A, Evans D. Attitudes and approaches to patient and public involvement across Europe: a systematic review. Health Soc Care Community. 2021 Jan;29(1):18–27. doi: 10.1111/hsc.13111.
    1. Hunter A, Facey K, Thomas V, Haerry D, Warner K, Klingmann I, May M, See W. EUPATI guidance for patient involvement in medicines research and development: health technology assessment. Front Med (Lausanne) 2018 Sep 6;5:231. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2018.00231. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2018.00231.
    1. INVOLVE . Briefing Notes for Researchers: Public Involvement in NHS, Public Health and Social Care Research. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2012.
    1. Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, Altman DG, Moher D, Barber R, Denegri S, Entwistle A, Littlejohns P, Morris C, Suleman R, Thomas V, Tysall C. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3:13. doi: 10.1186/s40900-017-0062-2. 62
    1. Mackintosh N, Sandall J, Collison C, Carter W, Harris J. Employing the arts for knowledge production and translation: visualizing new possibilities for women speaking up about safety concerns in maternity. Health Expect. 2018 Jun 17;21(3):647–58. doi: 10.1111/hex.12660. doi: 10.1111/hex.12660.
    1. Kelemen M, Surman E, Dikomitis L. Cultural animation in health research: an innovative methodology for patient and public involvement and engagement. Health Expect. 2018 Aug;21(4):805–13. doi: 10.1111/hex.12677.
    1. Evans BA, Porter A, Snooks H, Burholt V. A co-produced method to involve service users in research: the SUCCESS model. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Feb 15;19(1):34. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0671-6. 10.1186/s12874-019-0671-6
    1. Eccles A, Bryce C, Turk A, Atherton H. Patient and public involvement mobile workshops - convenient involvement for the un-usual suspects. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4:38. doi: 10.1186/s40900-018-0123-1. 123
    1. How do I hold a PPI meeting using virtual tools? National Institute for Health Research. 2020. [2020-10-22]. .
    1. Boddy K, Cowan K, Gibson A, Britten N. Does funded research reflect the priorities of people living with type 1 diabetes? A secondary analysis of research questions. BMJ Open. 2017 Sep 27;7(9):e016540. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016540. bmjopen-2017-016540
    1. Knowles S, Hays R, Senra H, Bower P, Locock L, Protheroe J, Sanders C, Daker-White G. Empowering people to help speak up about safety in primary care: using codesign to involve patients and professionals in developing new interventions for patients with multimorbidity. Health Expect. 2018 Apr;21(2):539–48. doi: 10.1111/hex.12648.
    1. Tran V, Riveros C, Péan C, Czarnobroda A, Ravaud P. Patients' perspective on how to improve the care of people with chronic conditions in France: a citizen science study within the ComPaRe e-cohort. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Nov;28(11):875–86. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008593. bmjqs-2018-008593
    1. Little P, Everitt H, Williamson I, Warner G, Moore M, Gould C, Ferrier K, Payne S. Preferences of patients for patient centred approach to consultation in primary care: observational study. Br Med J. 2001 Feb 24;322(7284):468–72. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7284.468.
    1. Boney O, Bell M, Bell N, Conquest A, Cumbers M, Drake S, Galsworthy M, Gath J, Grocott MPW, Harris E, Howell S, Ingold A, Nathanson MH, Pinkney T, Metcalf L. Identifying research priorities in anaesthesia and perioperative care: final report of the joint National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia/James Lind Alliance Research Priority Setting Partnership. BMJ Open. 2015 Dec 16;5(12):e010006. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010006. bmjopen-2015-010006
    1. Higgins PS, Shugrue N, Ruiz K, Robison J. Medicare and Medicaid users speak out about their health care: the real, the ideal, and how to get there. Popul Health Manag. 2015 Apr;18(2):123–30. doi: 10.1089/pop.2014.0056.
    1. Howe A, Mathie E, Munday D, Cowe M, Goodman C, Keenan J, Kendall S, Poland F, Staniszewska S, Wilson P. Learning to work together - lessons from a reflective analysis of a research project on public involvement. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3:1. doi: 10.1186/s40900-016-0051-x. 51
    1. Rawson TM, Castro-Sánchez E, Charani E, Husson F, Moore LS, Holmes AH, Ahmad R. Involving citizens in priority setting for public health research: implementation in infection research. Health Expect. 2018 Feb;21(1):222–9. doi: 10.1111/hex.12604.
    1. Dewa LH, Lawrence-Jones A, Crandell C, Jaques J, Pickles K, Lavelle M, Pappa S, Aylin P. Reflections, impact and recommendations of a co-produced qualitative study with young people who have experience of mental health difficulties. Health Expect. 2020 Jun 09; doi: 10.1111/hex.13088.
    1. O'Hara MC, Hynes L, O'Donnell M, Keighron C, Allen G, Caulfield A, Duffy C, Long M, Mallon M, Mullins M, Tonra G, Byrne M, Dinneen SF, with the D1 Now Type 1 Diabetes Young Adult Study Group Strength in Numbers: an international consensus conference to develop a novel approach to care delivery for young adults with type 1 diabetes, the D1 Now Study. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3:25. doi: 10.1186/s40900-017-0076-9. 76
    1. Valaitis R, Longaphy J, Ploeg J, Agarwal G, Oliver D, Nair K, Kastner M, Avilla E, Dolovich L. Health TAPESTRY: co-designing interprofessional primary care programs for older adults using the persona-scenario method. BMC Fam Pract. 2019 Sep 04;20(1):122. doi: 10.1186/s12875-019-1013-9. 10.1186/s12875-019-1013-9
    1. Locock L, Robert G, Boaz A, Vougioukalou S, Shuldham C, Fielden J, Ziebland S, Gager M, Tollyfield R, Pearcey J. Using a national archive of patient experience narratives to promote local patient-centered quality improvement: an ethnographic process evaluation of 'accelerated' experience-based co-design. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2014 Oct 19;19(4):200–7. doi: 10.1177/1355819614531565.1355819614531565
    1. Hatton AL, Haslam C, Bell S, Langley J, Woolrych R, Cory C, Brownjohn JM, Goodwin VA. Innovative solutions to enhance safe and green environments for ageing well using co-design through patient and public involvement. Res Involv Engagem. 2020;6:45. doi: 10.1186/s40900-020-00223-4. 223
    1. Hyatt A, Morkunas B, Davey D, Thai AA, Trewhella M, Duffy M, Dawson T, Gourlay P, Hutchison J, Milne D. Co-design and development of online video resources about immunotherapy with patients and their family. Patient Educ Couns. 2020 Sep 16; doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2020.09.014.S0738-3991(20)30512-7
    1. Mulvale G, Green J, Miatello A, Cassidy AE, Martens T. Finding harmony within dissonance: engaging patients, family/caregivers and service providers in research to fundamentally restructure relationships through integrative dynamics. Health Expect. 2020 Jun 11; doi: 10.1111/hex.13063.
    1. Mader LB, Harris T, Kläger S, Wilkinson IB, Hiemstra TF. Inverting the patient involvement paradigm: defining patient led research. Res Involv Engagem. 2018 Jul;4:21. doi: 10.1186/s40900-018-0104-4. 104
    1. Priest C, Knopf A, Groves D, Carpenter JS, Furrey C, Krishnan A, Miller WR, Otte JL, Palakal M, Wiehe S, Wilson J. Finding the patient's voice using big data: analysis of users' health-related concerns in the ChaCha question-and-answer service (2009-2012) J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(3):e44. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5033. v18i3e44
    1. Vasilica CM, Brettle A, Ormandy P. A co-designed social media intervention to satisfy information needs and improve outcomes of patients with chronic kidney disease: longitudinal study. JMIR Form Res. 2020 Jan 27;4(1):e13207. doi: 10.2196/13207. v4i1e13207
    1. Piercy H, Yeo M, Yap S, Hart AR. What are the information needs of parents caring for a child with Glutaric aciduria type 1? BMC Pediatr. 2019 Oct 13;19(1):349. doi: 10.1186/s12887-019-1742-x. 10.1186/s12887-019-1742-x
    1. Synnot A, Bragge P, Lowe D, Nunn JS, O'Sullivan M, Horvat L, Tong A, Kay D, Ghersi D, McDonald S, Poole N, Bourke N, Lannin N, Vadasz D, Oliver S, Carey K, Hill SJ. Research priorities in health communication and participation: international survey of consumers and other stakeholders. BMJ Open. 2018 May 08;8(5):e019481. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019481. bmjopen-2017-019481
    1. Finer S, Robb P, Cowan K, Daly A, Shah K, Farmer A. Setting the top 10 research priorities to improve the health of people with Type 2 diabetes: a Diabetes UK-James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership. Diabet Med. 2018 Jul 15;35(7):862–70. doi: 10.1111/dme.13613.
    1. Bethell J, Puts MT, Sattar S, Andrew MK, Choate AS, Clarke B, Cowan K, DeAngelis C, Elliott J, Fitch MI, Frank C, Hominick K, Keatings M, McElhaney JE, McKay SM, Pitters E, Ploeg J, Sidani S, McGilton KS. The Canadian frailty priority setting partnership: research priorities for older adults living with frailty. Can Geriatr J. 2019 Mar;22(1):23–33. doi: 10.5770/cgj.22.336. cgj-22-23
    1. Berwick DM, Loehrer S, Gunther-Murphy C. Breaking the rules for better care. J Am Med Assoc. 2017 Jun 06;317(21):2161–2. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.4703.2624332
    1. Zimbudzi E, Lo C, Robinson T, Ranasinha S, Teede HJ, Usherwood T, Polkinghorne KR, Kerr PG, Fulcher G, Gallagher M, Jan S, Cass A, Walker R, Russell G, Johnson G, Zoungas S. The impact of an integrated diabetes and kidney service on patients, primary and specialist health professionals in Australia: a qualitative study. PLoS One. 2019;14(7):e0219685. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219685. PONE-D-19-09268
    1. Gregg A, Getz N, Benger J, Anderson A. A novel collaborative approach to building better clinical trials: new insights from a patient engagement workshop to propel patient-centricity forward. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2019 May 22;:2168479019849875. doi: 10.1177/2168479019849875.
    1. Russell G, Starr S, Elphick C, Rodogno R, Singh I. Selective patient and public involvement: the promise and perils of pharmaceutical intervention for autism. Health Expect. 2018 Apr;21(2):466–73. doi: 10.1111/hex.12637.
    1. Woodward L, Johnson S, Walle JV, Beck J, Gasteyger C, Licht C, Ariceta G, aHUS Registry SAB An innovative and collaborative partnership between patients with rare disease and industry-supported registries: the Global aHUS Registry. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2016 Nov 21;11(1):154. doi: 10.1186/s13023-016-0537-5. 10.1186/s13023-016-0537-5
    1. Westfall JM, VanVorst RF, Main DS, Herbert C. Community-based participatory research in practice-based research networks. Ann Fam Med. 2006;4(1):8–14. doi: 10.1370/afm.511. 4/1/8
    1. Neville C, Da CD, Mill C, Rochon M, Aviña-Zubieta JA, Pineau CA, Eng D, Fortin PR. The needs of persons with lupus and health care providers: a qualitative study aimed toward the development of the Lupus Interactive Navigator™. Lupus. 2014 Feb;23(2):176–82. doi: 10.1177/0961203313517154.0961203313517154
    1. Jørgensen CR, Eskildsen NB, Johnsen AT. User involvement in a Danish project on the empowerment of cancer patients - experiences and early recommendations for further practice. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4:26. doi: 10.1186/s40900-018-0105-3. 105
    1. Casanova T, Black C, Rafiq S, Hugill-Jones J, Read JC, Vancleef K. The impact of active research involvement of young children in the design of a new stereotest. Res Involv Engagem. 2020;6:29. doi: 10.1186/s40900-020-00194-6. 194
    1. Birnie KA, Dib K, Ouellette C, Dib MA, Nelson K, Pahtayken D, Baerg K, Chorney J, Forgeron P, Lamontagne C, Noel M, Poulin P, Stinson J. Partnering for Pain: a Priority Setting Partnership to identify patient-oriented research priorities for pediatric chronic pain in Canada. CMAJ Open. 2019;7(4):654–64. doi: 10.9778/cmajo.20190060. 7/4/E654
    1. Brainard JS, Al Assaf E, Omasete J, Leach S, Hammer CC, Hunter PR. Forced migrants involved in setting the agenda and designing research to reduce impacts of complex emergencies: combining with patient and public involvement. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3:23. doi: 10.1186/s40900-017-0073-z. 73
    1. Brett L, Nguyen AD, Siette J, Dove-Pizarro J, Hourihan F, Georgiou A. The co-design of timely and meaningful information needed to enhance social participation in community aged care services: think tank proceedings. Australas J Ageing. 2020 Mar;39(1):162–7. doi: 10.1111/ajag.12706.
    1. Brown K, Dyas J, Chahal P, Khalil Y, Riaz P, Cummings-Jones J. Discovering the research priorities of people with diabetes in a multicultural community: a focus group study. Br J Gen Pract. 2006 Mar;56(524):206–13.
    1. Costello W, Dorris E. Laying the groundwork: building relationships for public and patient involvement in pre-clinical paediatric research. Health Expect. 2020 Feb;23(1):96–105. doi: 10.1111/hex.12972.
    1. Coultas C, Kieslich K, Littlejohns P. Patient and public involvement in priority-setting decisions in England's Transforming NHS: an interview study with Clinical Commissioning Groups in South London sustainability transformation partnerships. Health Expect. 2019 Dec;22(6):1223–30. doi: 10.1111/hex.12948.
    1. Coupe N, Mathieson A. Patient and public involvement in doctoral research: impact, resources and recommendations. Health Expect. 2020 Feb;23(1):125–36. doi: 10.1111/hex.12976.
    1. Dawson S, Ruddock A, Parmar V, Morris R, Cheraghi-Sohi S, Giles S, Campbell S. Patient and public involvement in doctoral research: reflections and experiences of the PPI contributors and researcher. Res Involv Engagem. 2020;6:23. doi: 10.1186/s40900-020-00201-w. 201
    1. Frost J, Gibson A, Harris-Golesworthy F, Harris J, Britten N. Patient involvement in qualitative data analysis in a trial of a patient-centred intervention: reconciling lay knowledge and scientific method. Health Expect. 2018 Dec;21(6):1111–21. doi: 10.1111/hex.12814.
    1. Gadsby R, Snow R, Daly AC, Crowe S, Matyka K, Hall B, Petrie J. Setting research priorities for Type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2012 Oct;29(10):1321–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2012.03755.x.
    1. Ghisoni M, Wilson CA, Morgan K, Edwards B, Simon N, Langley E, Rees H, Wells A, Tyson PJ, Thomas P, Meudell A, Kitt F, Mitchell B, Bowen A, Celia J. Priority setting in research: user led mental health research. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3:4. doi: 10.1186/s40900-016-0054-7. 54
    1. Gillard S, Simons L, Turner K, Lucock M, Edwards C. Patient and public involvement in the coproduction of knowledge: reflection on the analysis of qualitative data in a mental health study. Qual Health Res. 2012 Aug;22(8):1126–37. doi: 10.1177/1049732312448541.1049732312448541
    1. Grant C, Widnall E, Cross L, Simonoff E, Downs J. Informing the development of an E-platform for monitoring wellbeing in schools: involving young people in a co-design process. Res Involv Engagem. 2020;6:51. doi: 10.1186/s40900-020-00219-0. 219
    1. Grundy A, Keetharuth AD, Barber R, Carlton J, Connell J, Buck ET, Barkham M, Ricketts T, Robotham D, Rose D, Kay J, Hanlon R, Brazier J. Public involvement in health outcomes research: lessons learnt from the development of the recovering quality of life (ReQoL) measures. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019 Apr 11;17(1):60. doi: 10.1186/s12955-019-1123-z. 10.1186/s12955-019-1123-z
    1. Irving A, Turner J, Marsh M, Broadway-Parkinson A, Fall D, Coster J, Siriwardena AN. A coproduced patient and public event: an approach to developing and prioritizing ambulance performance measures. Health Expect. 2018 Feb;21(1):230–8. doi: 10.1111/hex.12606.
    1. Madden M, Morris S, Ogden M, Lewis D, Stewart D, McCambridge J. Producing co-production: reflections on the development of a complex intervention. Health Expect. 2020 Jun;23(3):659–69. doi: 10.1111/hex.13046.
    1. Mann C, Chilcott S, Plumb K, Brooks E, Man M. Reporting and appraising the context, process and impact of PPI on contributors, researchers and the trial during a randomised controlled trial - the 3D study. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4:15. doi: 10.1186/s40900-018-0098-y. 98
    1. Mathie E, Smeeton N, Munday D, Rhodes G, Wythe H, Jones J. The role of patient and public involvement leads in facilitating feedback: "invisible work". Res Involv Engagem. 2020;6:40. doi: 10.1186/s40900-020-00209-2. 209
    1. McCarron TL, Noseworthy T, Moffat K, Wilkinson G, Zelinsky S, White D, Hassay D, Lorenzetti DL, Marlett NJ. A co-designed framework to support and sustain patient and family engagement in health-care decision making. Health Expect. 2020 Aug;23(4):825–36. doi: 10.1111/hex.13054.
    1. Murta FR, Waxman J, Skilton A, Wickwar S, Bonstein K, Cable R, Clipston J, Bates A, Mattocks R, Shelley J, McCullough P, Surry M, Matthews J, Worsfold S, Lorenzano D, Jayaprakasam A, Azzam S, Shafi F, Kwong Q, Koutroumanaos N, Manta A, Negretti G, Haridas A, Ezra DG. The first UK national blepharospasm patient and public involvement day; identifying priorities. Orbit. 2020 Aug;39(4):233–40. doi: 10.1080/01676830.2019.1657469.
    1. Ní Shé E, Cassidy J, Davies C, De Brún A, Donnelly S, Dorris E, Dunne N, Egan K, Foley M, Galvin M, Harkin M, Killilea M, Kroll T, Lacey V, Lambert V, McLoughlin S, Mitchell D, Murphy E, Mwendwa P, Nicholson E, O'Donnell D, O'Philbin L. Minding the gap: identifying values to enable public and patient involvement at the pre-commencement stage of research projects. Res Involv Engagem. 2020;6:46. doi: 10.1186/s40900-020-00220-7. 220
    1. Nissen ER, Bregnballe V, Mehlsen MY, Muldbjerg A, O'Connor M, Lomborg KE. Patient involvement in the development of a psychosocial cancer rehabilitation intervention: evaluation of a shared working group with patients and researchers. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4:24. doi: 10.1186/s40900-018-0106-2. 106
    1. O'Donnell D, Ní Shé E, McCarthy M, Thornton S, Doran T, Smith F, O'Brien B, Milton J, Savin B, Donnellan A, Callan E, McAuliffe E, Gray S, Carey T, Boyle N, O'Brien M, Patton A, Bailey J, O'Shea D, Marie T. Enabling public, patient and practitioner involvement in co-designing frailty pathways in the acute care setting. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Nov 05;19(1):797. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4626-8. 10.1186/s12913-019-4626-8
    1. Porcheret M, Grime J, Main C, Dziedzic K. Developing a model osteoarthritis consultation: a Delphi consensus exercise. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013 Jan 16;14:25. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-14-25. 1471-2474-14-25
    1. Rankin G, Summers R, Cowan K, Barker K, Button K, Carroll SP, Fashanu B, Moran F, O'Neill B, Ten Hove R, Waterfield J, Westwater-Wood S, Wellwood I, James Lind Alliance (JLA) Physiotherapy Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) Steering Group Identifying priorities for physiotherapy research in the UK: the James Lind Alliance physiotherapy priority setting partnership. Physiotherapy. 2020 Jun;107:161–8. doi: 10.1016/j.physio.2019.07.006.S0031-9406(19)30082-3
    1. Read S, Aries AM, Ashby SM, Bambrick V, Blackburn SJ, Clifford H, Rhodes C, Thirlwall S, Watkins CA. Facilitating personal development for public involvement in health-care education and research: a co-produced pilot study in one UK higher education institute. Health Expect. 2020 Oct;23(5):1191–201. doi: 10.1111/hex.13097.
    1. Robinson T, Skouteris H, Burns P, Melder A, Bailey C, Croft C, Spyridonidis D, Teede H. Flipping the paradigm: a qualitative exploration of research translation centres in the United Kingdom and Australia. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020 Sep 29;18(1):111. doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-00622-9. 10.1186/s12961-020-00622-9
    1. Walsh NM, O'Brien EC, Geraghty AA, Byrne DF, Whelan A, Reilly S, Murray S, Reilly C, Adams E, Farnan PM, McAuliffe FM. Taking guidance from parents involved in a longitudinal birth cohort - the ROLO family advisory committee. Res Involv Engagem. 2020;6:16. doi: 10.1186/s40900-020-00200-x. 200
    1. Wittmeier KD, Hobbs-Murison K, Holland C, Crawford E, Loewen H, Morris M, Min S, Abou-Setta A, Keijzer R. Identifying information needs for hirschsprung disease through caregiver involvement via social media: a prioritization study and literature review. J Med Internet Res. 2018 Dec 21;20(12):e297. doi: 10.2196/jmir.9701. v20i12e297
    1. Puppo C, Spire B, Morel S, Génin M, Béniguel L, Costagliola D, Ghosn J, Mabire X, Molina JM, Rojas Castro D, Préau M. How PrEP users constitute a community in the MSM population through their specific experience and management of stigmatization. The example of the French ANRS-PREVENIR study. AIDS Care. 2020 May;32(sup2):32–9. doi: 10.1080/09540121.2020.1742863.
    1. Young HM, Goodliffe S, Madhani M, Phelps K, Regen E, Locke A, Burton JO, Singh SJ, Smith AC, Conroy S. Co-producing progression criteria for feasibility studies: a partnership between patient contributors, clinicians and researchers. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Oct 06;16(19) doi: 10.3390/ijerph16193756. ijerph16193756
    1. Sin J, Henderson C, Woodham LA, Hernández A, Gillard S. A multicomponent eHealth intervention for family carers for people affected by psychosis: a coproduced design and build study. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Aug 06;21(8):e14374. doi: 10.2196/14374. v21i8e14374
    1. Bell T, Vat LE, McGavin C, Keller M, Getchell L, Rychtera A, Fernandez N. Co-building a patient-oriented research curriculum in Canada. Res Involv Engagem. 2019 Feb 11;5(1):7. doi: 10.1186/s40900-019-0141-7. 141
    1. Tapp H, Derkowski D, Calvert M, Welch M, Spencer S. Patient perspectives on engagement in shared decision-making for asthma care. Fam Pract. 2017 Jun 01;34(3):353–7. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmw122. cmw122
    1. Locock L, Kirkpatrick S, Brading L, Sturmey G, Cornwell J, Churchill N, Robert G. Involving service users in the qualitative analysis of patient narratives to support healthcare quality improvement. Res Involv Engagem. 2019;5:1. doi: 10.1186/s40900-018-0133-z. 133
    1. Buffel T. Social research and co-production with older people: developing age-friendly communities. J Aging Stud. 2018 Mar;44:52–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jaging.2018.01.012. S0890-4065(17)30457-7
    1. Carr EC, Patel JN, Ortiz MM, Miller JL, Teare SR, Barber CE, Marshall DA. Co-design of a patient experience survey for arthritis central intake: an example of meaningful patient engagement in healthcare design. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Jun 04;19(1):355. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4196-9. 10.1186/s12913-019-4196-9
    1. Dahm MR, Brown A, Martin D, Williams M, Osborne B, Basseal J, Potter M, Hardie R, Li J, Thomas J, Georgiou A. Interaction and innovation: practical strategies for inclusive consumer-driven research in health services. BMJ Open. 2019 Dec 16;9(12):e031555. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031555. bmjopen-2019-031555
    1. Dias S, Gama A, Simões D, Mendão L. Implementation process and impacts of a participatory HIV research project with key populations. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:5845218. doi: 10.1155/2018/5845218. doi: 10.1155/2018/5845218.
    1. Fonseka TM, Pong JT, Kcomt A, Kennedy SH, Parikh SV. Collaborating with individuals with lived experience to adapt CANMAT clinical depression guidelines into a patient treatment guide: the CHOICE-D co-design process. J Eval Clin Pract. 2020 Aug;26(4):1259–69. doi: 10.1111/jep.13308.
    1. Frith L, Hepworth L, Lowers V, Joseph F, Davies E, Gabbay M. Role of public involvement in the Royal College of Physicians' Future Hospitals healthcare improvement programme: an evaluation. BMJ Open. 2019 Sep 12;9(9):e027680. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027680.bmjopen-2018-027680
    1. King C, Gillard S. Bringing together coproduction and community participatory research approaches: using first person reflective narrative to explore coproduction and community involvement in mental health research. Health Expect. 2019 Aug;22(4):701–8. doi: 10.1111/hex.12908.
    1. Leslie M, Khayatzadeh-Mahani A, MacKean G. Recruitment of caregivers into health services research: lessons from a user-centred design study. Res Involv Engagem. 2019;5:17. doi: 10.1186/s40900-019-0150-6. 150
    1. McCarron TL, Noseworthy T, Moffat K, Wilkinson G, Zelinsky S, White D, Hassay D, Lorenzetti DL, Marlett NJ. Understanding the motivations of patients: a co-designed project to understand the factors behind patient engagement. Health Expect. 2019 Aug;22(4):709–20. doi: 10.1111/hex.12942.
    1. Taylor RM, Mohain J, Gibson F, Solanki A, Whelan J, Fern LA. Novel participatory methods of involving patients in research: naming and branding a longitudinal cohort study, BRIGHTLIGHT. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015 Mar 14;15:20. doi: 10.1186/s12874-015-0014-1. 10.1186/s12874-015-0014-1
    1. Woods L, Roehrer E, Duff J, Walker K, Cummings E. Co-design of a mobile health app for heart failure: perspectives from the team. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2019 Aug 08;266:183–8. doi: 10.3233/SHTI190792.SHTI190792
    1. Tsianakas V, Maben J, Wiseman T, Robert G, Richardson A, Madden P, Griffin M, Davies EA. Using patients' experiences to identify priorities for quality improvement in breast cancer care: patient narratives, surveys or both? BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Aug 22;12(1):271. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-271. 1472-6963-12-271
    1. Cheraghi-Sohi S, Hole AR, Mead N, McDonald R, Whalley D, Bower P, Roland M. What patients want from primary care consultations: a discrete choice experiment to identify patients' priorities. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6(2):107–15. doi: 10.1370/afm.816. 6/2/107
    1. Kalot MA, Al-Khatib M, Connell NT, Flood V, Brignardello-Petersen R, James P, Mustafa RA, VWD working group An international survey to inform priorities for new guidelines on von Willebrand disease. Haemophilia. 2020 Jan 26;26(1):106–16. doi: 10.1111/hae.13881.
    1. Brooks H, Irmansyah I, Susanti H, Utomo B, Prawira B, Iskandar L, Colucci E, Keliat B, James K, Bee P, Bell V, Lovell K. Evaluating the acceptability of a co-produced and co-delivered mental health public engagement festival: Mental Health Matters, Jakarta, Indonesia. Res Involv Engagem. 2019;5:25. doi: 10.1186/s40900-019-0161-3. 161
    1. Jilka S, Murray C, Wieczorek A, Griffiths H, Wykes T, McShane R. Exploring patients' and carers' views about the clinical use of ketamine to inform policy and practical decisions: mixed-methods study. BJPsych Open. 2019 Jul 30;5(5):e62. doi: 10.1192/bjo.2019.52. S2056472419000528
    1. Troya MI, Dikomitis L, Babatunde OO, Bartlam B, Chew-Graham CA. Understanding self-harm in older adults: a qualitative study. EClinicalMedicine. 2019 Jul;12:52–61. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.06.002. S2589-5370(19)30095-1
    1. Bayliss K, Starling B, Raza K, Johansson EC, Zabalan C, Moore S, Skingle D, Jasinski T, Thomas S, Stack R. Patient involvement in a qualitative meta-synthesis: lessons learnt. Res Involv Engagem. 2016 May 12;2(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s40900-016-0032-0. 32
    1. Best P, Badham J, Corepal R, O'Neill RF, Tully MA, Kee F, Hunter RF. Network methods to support user involvement in qualitative data analyses: an introduction to Participatory Theme Elicitation. Trials. 2017 Nov 23;18(1):559. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-2289-5. 10.1186/s13063-017-2289-5
    1. Garfield S, Jheeta S, Husson F, Jacklin A, Bischler A, Norton C, Franklin BD. Lay involvement in the analysis of qualitative data in health services research: a descriptive study. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2:29. doi: 10.1186/s40900-016-0041-z. 41
    1. Jennings H, Slade M, Bates P, Munday E, Toney R. Best practice framework for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in collaborative data analysis of qualitative mental health research: methodology development and refinement. BMC Psychiatry. 2018 Jun 28;18(1):213. doi: 10.1186/s12888-018-1794-8. 10.1186/s12888-018-1794-8
    1. Stevenson M, Taylor BJ. Involving individuals with dementia as co-researchers in analysis of findings from a qualitative study. Dementia (London) 2019 Feb;18(2):701–12. doi: 10.1177/1471301217690904.
    1. Thomas F, Hansford L, Wyatt K, Byng R, Coombes K, Finch J, Finnerty K, Ford J, Guppy K, Guppy R, Hughes S, McCabe R, Richardson H, Roche D, Stuteley H. An engaged approach to exploring issues around poverty and mental health: a reflective evaluation of the research process from researchers and community partners involved in the DeStress study. Health Expect. 2020 May 24; doi: 10.1111/hex.13065.
    1. Lee C, Tanna N, Blair M, Yusuf Y, Khalief H, Lakhanpaul M. Getting underneath the skin: a community engagement event for optimal vitamin D status in an 'easily overlooked' group. Health Expect. 2019 Dec;22(6):1322–30. doi: 10.1111/hex.12978.
    1. Kuluski K, Ho JW, Cadel L, Shearkhani S, Levy C, Marcinow M, Peckham A, Sandercock J, Willison DJ, Guilcher SJ. An alternate level of care plan: co-designing components of an intervention with patients, caregivers and providers to address delayed hospital discharge challenges. Health Expect. 2020 Oct;23(5):1155–65. doi: 10.1111/hex.13094.
    1. Maccarthy J, Guerin S, Wilson AG, Dorris ER. Facilitating public and patient involvement in basic and preclinical health research. PLoS One. 2019;14(5):e0216600. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216600. PONE-D-18-32205
    1. Garfield S, Jheeta S, Jacklin A, Bischler A, Norton C, Franklin BD. Patient and public involvement in data collection for health services research: a descriptive study. Res Involv Engagem. 2015;1:8. doi: 10.1186/s40900-015-0006-7. 6
    1. Hoddinott P, Pollock A, O'Cathain A, Boyer I, Taylor J, MacDonald C, Oliver S, Donovan JL. How to incorporate patient and public perspectives into the design and conduct of research. F1000Res. 2018;7:752. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.15162.1.
    1. Morris M, Alencar Y, Rachet B, Stephens R, Coleman MP. Fleshing out the data: when epidemiological researchers engage with patients and carers. Learning lessons from a patient involvement activity. BMJ Open. 2020 Sep 30;10(9):e036311. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036311. bmjopen-2019-036311
    1. Chouvarda I, Maramis C, Livitckaia K, Trajkovik V, Burmaoglu S, Belani H, Kool J, Lewandowski R, ENJECT Working Group 1 Network Connected health services: framework for an impact assessment. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Sep 03;21(9):e14005. doi: 10.2196/14005. v21i9e14005
    1. Chapman A, Hadfield M, Chapman C. Qualitative research in healthcare: an introduction to grounded theory using thematic analysis. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2015;45(3):201–5. doi: 10.4997/jrcpe.2015.305.
    1. Ratzki-Leewing A, Parvaresh Rizi E, Harris SB. Family members: the forgotten players in the Diabetes Care Team (The TALK-HYPO Study) Diabetes Ther. 2019 Dec;10(6):2305–11. doi: 10.1007/s13300-019-00687-y. 10.1007/s13300-019-00687-y
    1. Carlin CS, Christianson JB, Keenan P, Finch M. Chronic illness and patient satisfaction. Health Serv Res. 2012 Dec;47(6):2250–72. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2012.01412.x.
    1. Tran V, Messou E, Djima MM, Ravaud P, Ekouevi DK. Patients' perspectives on how to decrease the burden of treatment: a qualitative study of HIV care in sub-Saharan Africa. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Apr;28(4):266–75. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007564. bmjqs-2017-007564
    1. Morgan DL. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd; 1997.
    1. Longhurst R. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Key Methods in Geography. 2003;3(2):143–56.
    1. Wiig S, Storm M, Aase K, Gjestsen MT, Solheim M, Harthug S, Robert G, Fulop N, QUASER team Investigating the use of patient involvement and patient experience in quality improvement in Norway: rhetoric or reality? BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Jun 06;13(1):206. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-206. 1472-6963-13-206
    1. Newcomer K, Hatry H, Wholey J. Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. Hoboken, New Jersey, United States: John Wiley & Sons; 2015. Conducting semi-structured interviews.
    1. Cowan K. The James Lind Alliance Guidebook. National Institute for Health Research. 2018. [2021-12-07].
    1. Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in a digital age : an overview of AHSN activity and learning. Academic Health Science Networks. 2018. [2021-12-07]. .
    1. Créquit P, Mansouri G, Benchoufi M, Vivot A, Ravaud P. Mapping of crowdsourcing in health: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2018 May 15;20(5):e187. doi: 10.2196/jmir.9330. v20i5e187
    1. Truitt AR, Monsell SE, Avins AL, Nerenz DR, Lawrence SO, Bauer Z, Comstock BA, Edwards TC, Patrick DL, Jarvik JG, Lavallee DC. Prioritizing research topics: a comparison of crowdsourcing and patient registry. Qual Life Res. 2018 Jan 5;27(1):41–50. doi: 10.1007/s11136-017-1566-9.10.1007/s11136-017-1566-9
    1. Cameron D, Smith GA, Daniulaityte R, Sheth AP, Dave D, Chen L, Anand G, Carlson R, Watkins KZ, Falck R. PREDOSE: a semantic web platform for drug abuse epidemiology using social media. J Biomed Inform. 2013 Dec;46(6):985–97. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2013.07.007. S1532-0464(13)00108-1
    1. Ampofo L, Collister S, O'Loughlin B, Chadwick A. Text mining and social media: when quantitative meets qualitative and software meets people. In: Halfpenny P, Procter R, editors. Innovations in Digital Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2015. pp. 161–92.
    1. Design together, live better. The AHSN Network. [2020-11-20].
    1. Melton H, Meader N, Dale H, Wright K, Jones-Diette J, Temple M, Shah I, Lovell K, McMillan D, Churchill R, Barbui C, Gilbody S, Coventry P. Interventions for adults with a history of complex traumatic events: the INCiTE mixed-methods systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2020 Sep;24(43):1–312. doi: 10.3310/hta24430. doi: 10.3310/hta24430.
    1. Brooks H, Irmansyah I, Lovell K, Savitri I, Utomo B, Prawira B, Iskandar L, Renwick L, Pedley R, Kusumayati A, Bee P. Improving mental health literacy among young people aged 11-15 years in Java, Indonesia: co-development and feasibility testing of a culturally-appropriate, user-centred resource (IMPeTUs) - a study protocol. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Jul 12;19(1):484. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4328-2. 10.1186/s12913-019-4328-2
    1. Lavallee DC, Lee JR, Semple JL, Lober WB, Evans HL. Engaging patients in co-design of mobile health tools for surgical site infection surveillance: implications for research and implementation. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2019 Oct;20(7):535–40. doi: 10.1089/sur.2019.148.
    1. Frisch N, Atherton P, Doyle-Waters MM, MacLeod ML, Mallidou A, Sheane V, Ward J, Woodley J. Patient-oriented research competencies in health (PORCH) for researchers, patients, healthcare providers, and decision-makers: results of a scoping review. Res Involv Engagem. 2020;6:4. doi: 10.1186/s40900-020-0180-0. 180
    1. Price A, Vasanthan L, Clarke M, Liew SM, Brice A, Burls A. SMOOTH: Self-Management of Open Online Trials in Health analysis found improvements were needed for reporting methods of internet-based trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Jan;105:27–39. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.08.017.S0895-4356(17)31415-4
    1. Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, Wang Z, Nabhan M, Shippee N, Brito JP, Boehmer K, Hasan R, Firwana B, Erwin P, Eton D, Sloan J, Montori V, Asi N, Dabrh AM, Murad MH. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Feb 26;14(1):89. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-89. 1472-6963-14-89
    1. Ludwig C, Graham ID, Gifford W, Lavoie J, Stacey D. Partnering with frail or seriously ill patients in research: a systematic review. Res Involv Engagem. 2020;6:52. doi: 10.1186/s40900-020-00225-2. 225
    1. Lucas PJ, Allnock D, Jessiman T. How are European birth-cohort studies engaging and consulting with young cohort members? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Apr 11;13:56. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-56. 1471-2288-13-56
    1. Mathie E, Wythe H, Munday D, Millac P, Rhodes G, Roberts N, Smeeton N, Poland F, Jones J. Reciprocal relationships and the importance of feedback in patient and public involvement: a mixed methods study. Health Expect. 2018 Oct;21(5):899–908. doi: 10.1111/hex.12684.
    1. Chambers E, Gardiner C, Thompson J, Seymour J. Patient and carer involvement in palliative care research: an integrative qualitative evidence synthesis review. Palliat Med. 2019 Sep;33(8):969–84. doi: 10.1177/0269216319858247.
    1. O'Connor S, Hanlon P, O'Donnell CA, Garcia S, Glanville J, Mair FS. Understanding factors affecting patient and public engagement and recruitment to digital health interventions: a systematic review of qualitative studies. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016 Sep 15;16(1):120. doi: 10.1186/s12911-016-0359-3. 10.1186/s12911-016-0359-3
    1. Stoyanov SR, Hides L, Kavanagh DJ, Wilson H. Development and validation of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS) JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016;4(2):e72. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.5849. v4i2e72
    1. Liabo K, Boddy K, Bortoli S, Irvine J, Boult H, Fredlund M, Joseph N, Bjornstad G, Morris C. Public involvement in health research: what does 'good' look like in practice? Res Involv Engagem. 2020;6:11. doi: 10.1186/s40900-020-0183-x. 183
    1. Nunn JS, Tiller J, Fransquet P, Lacaze P. Public involvement in global genomics research: a scoping review. Front Public Health. 2019;7:79. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00079. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00079.
    1. Miah J, Dawes P, Edwards S, Leroi I, Starling B, Parsons S. Patient and public involvement in dementia research in the European Union: a scoping review. BMC Geriatr. 2019 Aug 14;19(1):220. doi: 10.1186/s12877-019-1217-9. 10.1186/s12877-019-1217-9
    1. Hutchison K, Rogers W, Entwistle VA. Addressing deficits and injustices: the potential epistemic contributions of patients to research. Health Care Anal. 2017 Dec 8;25(4):386–403. doi: 10.1007/s10728-016-0323-5.10.1007/s10728-016-0323-5
    1. Buck D, Gamble C, Dudley L, Preston J, Hanley B, Williamson PR, Young B, EPIC Patient Advisory Group From plans to actions in patient and public involvement: qualitative study of documented plans and the accounts of researchers and patients sampled from a cohort of clinical trials. BMJ Open. 2014 Dec 04;4(12):e006400. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006400. bmjopen-2014-006400
    1. Naidoo N, Nguyen VT, Ravaud P, Young B, Amiel P, Schanté D, Clarke M, Boutron I. The research burden of randomized controlled trial participation: a systematic thematic synthesis of qualitative evidence. BMC Med. 2020 Jan 20;18(1):6. doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1476-5. 10.1186/s12916-019-1476-5
    1. Bereczky T. Patient advocacy -with a feeling patient citizenship -the description of an affective model of patient advocacy. Doctoral Dissertation, ELTE University, Hungary. 2019. [2021-12-07]. .
    1. Sacristan JA, Aguaron A, Avendaño C, Garrido P, Carrion J, Gutierrez A, Kroes R, Flores A. Patient involvement in clinical research: why, when, and how. Patient Prefer Adher. 2016 Apr;:631. doi: 10.2147/ppa.s104259.
    1. Huckvale K, Venkatesh S, Christensen H. Toward clinical digital phenotyping: a timely opportunity to consider purpose, quality, and safety. NPJ Digit Med. 2019;2:88. doi: 10.1038/s41746-019-0166-1. 166
    1. Algeo N, Hunter D, Cahill A, Dickson C, Adams J. Usability of a digital self-management website for people with osteoarthritis: a UK patient and public involvement study. Int J Ther Rehabil. 2017 Feb 02;24(2):78–82. doi: 10.12968/ijtr.2017.24.2.78.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する