↓ Skip to main content

Using qualitative research perspectives to inform patient engagement in research

Overview of attention for article published in Research Involvement and Engagement, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#24 of 151)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
80 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Using qualitative research perspectives to inform patient engagement in research
Published in
Research Involvement and Engagement, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40900-018-0107-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michelle Phoenix, Tram Nguyen, Stephen J. Gentles, Sandra VanderKaay, Andrea Cross, Linda Nguyen

Abstract

In Canada, and internationally, there is an increased demand for patient engagement in health care research. Patients are being involved throughout the research process in a variety of roles that extend beyond the traditional passive participant role. These practices, referred to collectively as 'patient engagement', have raised questions about how to engage patients in the research process. Specifically, researchers have noted a lack of theory underpinning patient engagement and are looking for guidance on how to select patients and engage patients throughout the research process. In this commentary, we draw on qualitative research perspectives to generate theoretical and methodological ideas that novice or experienced researchers can apply to facilitate patient engagement in research. Despite the recent advancements in patient engagement in health care research, there is limited research evidence regarding the best strategies for developing and supporting research partnerships with patients and caregivers. Three particular outstanding concerns that have been reported in the literature and that we will explore in this commentary are: (i) the lack of theoretical underpinning to inform the practice of patient engagement in research; (ii) the lack of knowledge regarding how to select patients to engage in research; and (iii) the lack of clear guidance about the best methods for engaging patients in research. We draw on qualitative research perspectives to reflect on these three areas of concern and propose insights into the theory and methods that we believe are useful for engaging patients in research.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 80 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 32%
Researcher 5 23%
Student > Master 2 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Professor 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 23%
Psychology 4 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 18%
Unspecified 3 14%
Social Sciences 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 1 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 November 2018.
All research outputs
#344,242
of 13,438,917 outputs
Outputs from Research Involvement and Engagement
#24
of 151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,973
of 267,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Involvement and Engagement
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,438,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,242 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them