↓ Skip to main content

Twelve Lessons Learned for Effective Research Partnerships Between Patients, Caregivers, Clinicians, Academic Researchers, and Other Stakeholders

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
139 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 Mendeley
Title
Twelve Lessons Learned for Effective Research Partnerships Between Patients, Caregivers, Clinicians, Academic Researchers, and Other Stakeholders
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11606-017-4269-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Holly O. Witteman, Selma Chipenda Dansokho, Heather Colquhoun, Angela Fagerlin, Anik M. C. Giguere, Sholom Glouberman, Lynne Haslett, Aubri Hoffman, Noah M. Ivers, France Légaré, Jean Légaré, Carrie A. Levin, Karli Lopez, Victor M. Montori, Jean-Sébastien Renaud, Kerri Sparling, Dawn Stacey, Robert J. Volk

Abstract

Research increasingly means that patients, caregivers, health professionals, other stakeholders, and academic investigators work in partnership. This requires effective collaboration rooted in mutual respect, involvement of all participants, and good communication. Having conducted such partnered research over multiple projects, and having recently completed a project together funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, we collaboratively developed a list of 12 lessons we have learned about how to ensure effective research partnerships. To foster a culture of mutual respect, hold early in-person meetings, with introductions focused on motivation, offer appropriate orientation for everyone, and maintain awareness of individual and project goals. To actively involve all team members, it is important to ensure sufficient funding for everyone's participation, to ask for and recognize diverse contributions, and to seek the input of quiet members. To facilitate good communication, teams should carefully consider labels, avoid jargon and acronyms, judiciously use homogeneous and heterogeneous subgroups, and keep progress visible. In offering pragmatic, actionable lessons we have learned through our separate and shared experiences, we hope to help foster more patient-centered research via productive and enjoyable research collaborations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 139 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 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 140 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Student > Master 13 9%
Other 11 8%
Professor 9 6%
Other 29 21%
Unknown 44 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 23 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 14%
Social Sciences 13 9%
Psychology 7 5%
Computer Science 3 2%
Other 17 12%
Unknown 57 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 97. 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 25 July 2022.
All research outputs
#444,611
of 25,750,437 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#347
of 8,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,126
of 452,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#14
of 140 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,750,437 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,247 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 452,873 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 140 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.