CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 502Mental Health and Patient InvolvementHealth Policy Implementation ScienceCommunity Health and Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluating patient and stakeholder engagement in research: moving from theory to practice

Open access
Esmail, Laura, Moore, Emily, Rein, Alison·2015·Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
DOI 10.2217/cer.14.79
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Despite the growing demand for research that engages stakeholders, there is limited evidence in the literature to demonstrate its value – or return on investment. This gap indicates a general lack of evaluation of engagement activities. To adequately inform engagement activities, we need to further investigate the dividends of engaged research, and how to evaluate these effects. This paper synthesizes the literature on hypothesized impacts of engagement, shares what has been evaluated and identifies steps needed to reduce the gap between engagement's promises and the underlying evidence supporting its practice. This assessment provides explicit guidance for better alignment of engagement's promised benefits with evaluation efforts and identifies specific areas for development of evaluative measures and better reporting processes.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2217/cer.14.79

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 68 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Krumholz H . National priorities and research agenda . In : Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute National Patient and Stakeholder Dialogue . Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute , Washington, DC, USA ( 2012 ).
  2. Garces JPD , Lopez GJP , Wang Z Eliciting Patient Perspective in Patient-Centered Outcomes Research: a Meta Narrative Systematic Review . Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) , Washington, DC, USA , 1 – 163 ( 2012 ).
  3. Mullins CD . Integrating Patients’ Voices in Study Design Elements with a Focus on Hard-to-reach Populations . Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) , Washington, DC, USA ( 2012 ).
  4. Nass PL , Levine S , Yancy C . Methods for Involving Patients in Topic Generation for Patient-Centered Comparative Effectiveness Research – an International Perspective . Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) , Washington, DC, USA ( 2012 ).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 502

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Esmail, L., Moore, E., & Rein, A.
Affiliations
AcademyHealth (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
Publisher
Becaris Publishing Limited
Published
2015-03
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
133-145
ISSN
  • 2042-6305 (ISSN-L)
  • 2042-6313
DOI
10.2217/cer.14.79
OpenAlex
W2096611776
Cited by
502
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 65 · 2023: 59 · 2022: 58 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 3
FWCI
5.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Community Health and Development
Keywords
patient engagement, stakeholder engagement, engagement outcomes, return on investment
MeSH terms
Humans, Patient Participation, Professional-Patient Relations, Comparative Effectiveness Research, Patient Outcome Assessment

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