The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Patient engagement in Canada: a scoping review of the ‘how’ and ‘what’ of patient engagement in health research
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Over the last 10 years, patient engagement in health research has emerged as the next evolution in healthcare research. However, limited evidence about the clear role and scope of patient engagement in health research and a lack of evidence about its impact have influenced the uptake, implementation and ongoing evolution of patient engagement. The present study aims to conduct a scoping review to identify methods for and outcomes of patient engagement in health research. METHODS: An adaptation of the scoping review methodology originally described by Arksey and O'Malley and updated by Levac, Colquhoun and O'Brien was applied. Sources from a formal database search and relevant documents from a grey literature search were compiled into data extraction tables. Articles were synthesised into key themes according to the (1) methods and (2) outcomes of patient engagement in health research. RESULTS: The total yield for the scoping review was 55 records from across Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States. While evidence about the methods used to engage patients in health research is increasing, stronger evidence of specific patient and healthcare system outcomes is required. This necessitates further mobilisation of research that explores outcomes and that validates specific tools to evaluate engagement. Additionally, theoretical frameworks that can better inform and sustain patient engagement across the lifecycle of health research are lacking. CONCLUSION: Further increasing the volume and reach of evidence about patient engagement in health research will support the paradigmatic shift needed to normalise the patient's role in research beyond 'subject' or 'participant', so as to ultimately improve patient health outcomes and better address healthcare reform in Canada.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework
Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616 · Cited by 36,742
Scoping studies: advancing the methodology
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 · Cited by 15,268
Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map?
Graham, I. D., Logan, J., Harrison, M. B., Straus, S. E., Tetroe, J., Caswell, W., & Robinson, N. (2006) · Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions · doi:10.1002/chp.47 · Cited by 4,705
Hibbard, J. H., & Greene, J. (2013) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1061 · Cited by 1,787
Patient engagement in research: a systematic review
Domecq, J. P., Prutsky, G., Elraiyah, T., Wang, Z., Nabhan, M., Shippee, N., Brito, J. P., Boehmer, K., Hasan, R., Firwana, B., et al. (2014) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-89 · Cited by 1,773
Brett, J., Staniszewska, S., Mockford, C., Herron-Marx, S., Hughes, J., Tysall, C., & Suleman, R. (2014) · The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research · doi:10.1007/s40271-014-0065-0 · Cited by 839
A 2020 vision of patient-centered primary care
Davis, K., Schoenbaum, S. C., & Audet, A.-M. (2005) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0178.x · Cited by 683
The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: a systematic review
Mockford, C., Staniszewska, S., Griffiths, F., & Herron-Marx, S. (2012) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzr066 · Cited by 570
Evaluating patient and stakeholder engagement in research: moving from theory to practice
Esmail, L., Moore, E., & Rein, A. (2015) · Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research · doi:10.2217/cer.14.79 · Cited by 502
Concannon, T. W., Fuster, M., Saunders, T., Patel, K., Wong, J. B., Leslie, L. K., & Lau, J. (2014) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-014-2878-x · Cited by 468
Cited by
Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews
Slattery, P., Saeri, A. K., & Bragge, P. (2020) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-020-0528-9 · Cited by 1,313
Harrison, J. D., Auerbach, A. D., Anderson, W., Fagan, M., Carnie, M., Hanson, C., Banta, J., Symczak, G., Robinson, E., Schnipper, J., et al. (2019) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12873 · Cited by 286
Vat, L. E., Finlay, T., Jan Schuitmaker‐Warnaar, T., Fahy, N., Robinson, P., Boudes, M., Diaz, A., Ferrer, E., Hivert, V., Purman, G., et al. (2020) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12951 · Cited by 173
Heckert, A., Forsythe, L. P., Carman, K. L., Frank, L., Hemphill, R., Elstad, E. A., Esmail, L., & Lesch, J. K. (2020) · Research Involvement and Engagement · doi:10.1186/s40900-020-00227-0 · Cited by 130
Warren, M., Leamon, T., Hall, A., Twells, L., Street, C., Stordy, A., Majumdar, K., Breault, L., Fiest, K., Rasiah, J., et al. (2020) · Journal of Patient Experience · doi:10.1177/2374373520909598 · Cited by 33
Metadata
- Authors
- Manafo, E., Petermann, L., Mason-Lai, P., & Vandall-Walker, V.
- Venue
- Health Research Policy and Systems
- Published
- 2018-02-07
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 5-5
- ISSN
- 1478-4505 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2802993040
- Cited by
- 482
- References
- 49
- FWCI
- 56.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Patient engagement in Canada: a scoping review of the ‘how’ and ‘what’ of patient engagement in health research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s12961-018-0282-4
- The paper
- Manafo, E., Petermann, L., Mason-Lai, P., & Vandall-Walker, V. (2018). Patient engagement in Canada: a scoping review of the ‘how’ and ‘what’ of patient engagement in health research. Health Research Policy and Systems. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0282-4
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
