| Title |
From tokenism to meaningful engagement: best practices in patient involvement in an EU project
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Research Involvement and Engagement, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40900-015-0004-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David Supple, Amanda Roberts, Val Hudson, Sarah Masefield, Neil Fitch, Malayka Rahmen, Breda Flood, Willem de Boer, Pippa Powell, Scott Wagers, on behalf of the U-BIOPRED PIP group |
| Abstract |
This commentary talks about patient involvement in one of the biggest EU projects to date-U-BIOPRED. It describes how people and carers of people with asthma have been able to develop and drive their input and have their voice heard among the >200 healthcare professional project members. Five key principles for the success of the patient involvement group are presented: involve early, involve deeply, have patients feedback on project progress, include patients in dissemination and help patients convey their own story. This group has been used as an example for other EU-funded projects, and the patient involvement group will be maintained after the end of the project to ensure that their experience and knowledge can help develop best practice in the future. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 4 | 25% |
| Belgium | 2 | 13% |
| United States | 2 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 69% |
| Scientists | 3 | 19% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 88 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 15% |
| Unknown | 17 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 7% |
| Psychology | 6 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 20 | 22% |
| Unknown | 24 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 72. 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 14 June 2022.
All research outputs
#525,127
of 23,508,125 outputs
Outputs from Research Involvement and Engagement
#21
of 403 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,172
of 265,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Involvement and Engagement
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,508,125 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 403 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. 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 265,219 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 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.