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 accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Despite the rise in popularity and continued growth of youth engagement in health research, systematic and deliberate theory‐building has been limited.”
From A systematic review of theories, models and frameworks used for youth engagement in health research (2024) · cites this paper as [61]
In the citing paper
“Previous studies indicated that engaging the target group increases study enrollment and may enhance the uptake and the acceptance of interventions [67, 68].”
Citations
Cites
A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms
Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2005) · Science Technology & Human Values · doi:10.1177/0162243904271724 · Cited by 1,860
Carman, K. L., Dardess, P., Maurer, M. E., Sofaer, S., Adams, K., Bechtel, C., & Sweeney, J. (2013) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1133 · Cited by 1,770
Brett, J., Staniszewska, S., Mockford, C., Herron‐Marx, S., Hughes, J., Tysall, C., & Suleman, R. (2014) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x · Cited by 1,598
Development of a theory of implementation and integration: Normalization Process Theory
May, C. R., Mair, F., Finch, T., MacFarlane, A., Dowrick, C., Treweek, S., Rapley, T., Ballini, L., Ong, B. N., Rogers, A., et al. (2009) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-29 · Cited by 1,409
Nothing about us without us: disability oppression and empowerment
Charlton, J. I. (1998) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.36-0640 · Cited by 1,124
Stakeholder Engagement: Beyond the Myth of Corporate Responsibility
Greenwood, M. (2007) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9509-y · Cited by 1,061
Abelson, J., Forest, P., Eyles, J. D., Smith, P., Martin, E., & Gauvin, F. (2003) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00343-x · Cited by 983
Community-based participatory research: assessing the evidence.
Viswanathan, M., Ammerman, A., Eng, E. M., Garlehner, G., Lohr, K. N., Griffith, D. M., Rhodes, S. D., Samuel‐Hodge, C. D., Maty, S. C., Lux, L. J., et al. (2004) · PubMed Central · Cited by 959
Evaluating Public-Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda
Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2004) · Science Technology & Human Values · doi:10.1177/0162243903259197 · Cited by 882
Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework
Shippee, N. D., Garces, J. P. D., López, G., Wang, Z., Elraiyah, T. A., Nabhan, M., Brito, J. P., Boehmer, K. B., Hasan, R., Firwana, B., et al. (2013) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12090 · Cited by 630
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
- 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 ).
- 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 ).
- 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 ).
- 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
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
Greenhalgh, T., Hinton, L., Finlay, T., Macfarlane, A., Fahy, N., Clyde, B., & Chant, A. (2019) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12888 · Cited by 1,059
Manafò, E., Petermann, L., Mason-Lai, P., & Vandall‐Walker, V. (2018) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-018-0282-4 · Cited by 483
How to engage stakeholders in research: design principles to support improvement
Boaz, A., Hanney, S. R., Borst, R. A. J., O’Shea, A., & Kok, M. O. (2018) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-018-0337-6 · Cited by 471
The PCORI Engagement Rubric: Promising Practices for Partnering in Research
Sheridan, S. E., Schrandt, S., Forsythe, L. P., Hilliard, T. S., & Paez, K. (2017) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.2042 · Cited by 360
Metadata
- Authors
- Esmail, L., Moore, E., & Rein, A.
- Affiliations
- AcademyHealth (US)
- 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
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- 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
