Cited by 88Mental Health and Patient InvolvementMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth Policy Implementation Science

Consumer involvement in systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research

Open access
Kreis, Julia, Puhan, Milo A., Schünemann, Holger J., Dickersin, Kay·2013·Health Expectations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Institute of Medicine recently recommended that comparative effectiveness research (CER) should involve input from consumers. While systematic reviews are a major component of CER, little is known about consumer involvement. OBJECTIVE: To explore current approaches to involving consumers in US-based and key international organizations and groups conducting or commissioning systematic reviews ('organizations'). DESIGN: In-depth, semi-structured interviews with key informants and review of organizations' websites. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Seventeen highly regarded US-based and international (Cochrane Collaboration, Campbell Collaboration) organizations. RESULTS: Organizations that usually involve consumers (seven of 17 in our sample) involve them at a programmatic level in the organization or in individual reviews through one-time consultation or on-going collaboration. For example, consumers may suggest topics, provide input on the key questions of the review, provide comments on draft protocols and reports, serve as co-authors or on an advisory group. Organizations involve different types of consumers (individual patients, consumer advocates, families and caregivers), recruiting them mainly through patient organizations and consumer networks. Some offer training in research methods, and one developed training for researchers on how to involve consumers. Little formal evaluation of the effects of consumer involvement is being carried out. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers are currently involved in systematic reviews in a variety of ways and for various reasons. Assessing which approaches are most effective in achieving different aims of consumer involvement is now required to inform future recommendations on consumer involvement in CER.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00722.x

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The evidence on PPI impact tends to be descriptive, largely qualitative, often retrospective case studies, with only a few exceptional prospective longitudinal case studies, comparative multiproject evaluations or studies employing quantitative designs.

    “What evidence there is tends to be descriptive, largely qualitative, often retrospective case studies, 19,29,106 with only a few exceptional prospective longitudinal case studies, 15 comparative multiproject evaluations 107 or studies employing quantitative designs.108”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Boote J, Telford R, Cooper C. Consumer involve- ment in health research: a review and research agen- da. Health Policy, 2002; 61: 213-236.
  2. CCNet. CCNet external review of consumers in the Cochrane Collaboration, focusing on review groups (Supplement to December 2009 ⁄ January 2010 CCNet Newsletter). 2010. CCNet. Available at: http:// www.ihe.ca/documents/CCNet%20exter- nal%20review_AppendixJan2010.pdf, accessed 18 July 2011.
  3. Consumer involvement in systematic reviews, J Kreis et al. Ó 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Health Expectations, 16, pp.323-337

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kreis, J., Puhan, M. A., Schünemann, H. J., & Dickersin, K.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • McMaster University (CA)
Venue
Health Expectations
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-03-06
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
323-337
ISSN
  • 1369-6513 (ISSN-L)
  • 1369-7625
OpenAlex
W1562916421
Cited by
88
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Expectations (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Institute of Medicine, Washington, D.C.,United States
  • Commonwealth Fund,New York, NY, United States
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
consumer involvement, systematic reviews, comparative effectiveness research, patient and public involvement, research organization, Cochrane Collaboration, Campbell Collaboration, patient associations, consumer advocates, research training
MeSH terms
Community Participation, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Review Literature as Topic, United States, Conflict of Interest, Comparative Effectiveness Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review