↓ Skip to main content

Recruiting patients as partners in health research: a qualitative descriptive study

Overview of attention for article published in Research Involvement and Engagement, August 2017
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 (#46 of 419)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
72 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
Title
Recruiting patients as partners in health research: a qualitative descriptive study
Published in
Research Involvement and Engagement, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40900-017-0067-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lidewij Eva Vat, Devonne Ryan, Holly Etchegary

Abstract

Increasingly, funders and researchers want to partner with patients in health research, but it can be challenging for researchers to find patient partners. More than taking part in research as participants, patient partners help design, carry out and manage research projects. The goal of this study was to describe ways that patient partners have been recruited by researchers and patient engagement leads (individuals within organizations responsible for promoting and supporting patients as research partners). We talked with researchers and patient engagement leads in Canada and the United Kingdom, as well as a patient representative. We found three ways that could help researchers and patients find each other. One way is a case-by-case basis, where patients are often sought with experience of a health condition that is the focus of the research. The other ways involved directories where projects were posted and could be found by patients and researchers, or a third party matched patients with research projects. We found four recruitment strategies:Social marketingCommunity outreachHealth systemPartnering with other organizations (e.g., advocacy groups) There are many influences on finding, selecting and retaining patient partners: patient characteristics, the local setting, the opportunity, work climate, education and support. We hope study results will provide a useful starting point for research teams in recruiting their patient partners. Background Patient engagement in clinical trials and other health research continues to gain momentum. While the benefits of patient engagement in research are emerging, relatively little is known about recruiting patients as research partners. The purpose of this study was to describe recruitment strategies and models of recruiting patients as partners in health research. Methods Qualitative descriptive study. Thirteen patient engagement leads and health researchers from Canada and the United Kingdom, as well as one patient representative from a national patient organization (7 female) completed semi-structured interviews. Results Recruitment infrastructures available to respondents varied, but could be categorized into three models including the traditional, third-party and directory models. Four categories of recruitment strategies were identified, representing multiple ways of recruiting patient partners: social marketing recruitment, community outreach recruitment, health system recruitment, and partnering recruitment. Conclusions Multiple recruitment strategies were identified for engaging patient partners in research, and some common factors influenced recruitment. Study findings contribute to the evidence base in patient engagement and provide guidance for research teams to help identify potential recruitment methods for their patient partners.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 72 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 119 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 14%
Student > Master 17 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 35 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 14%
Social Sciences 14 12%
Psychology 10 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 5%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 39 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. 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 08 December 2020.
All research outputs
#792,732
of 23,979,422 outputs
Outputs from Research Involvement and Engagement
#46
of 419 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,361
of 320,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Involvement and Engagement
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,979,422 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 419 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 320,127 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 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.