Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Feb 26:14:89.
doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-89.

Patient engagement in research: a systematic review

Juan Pablo Domecq, Gabriela Prutsky, Tarig Elraiyah, Zhen Wang, Mohammed Nabhan, Nathan Shippee, Juan Pablo Brito, Kasey Boehmer, Rim Hasan, Belal Firwana, Patricia Erwin, David Eton, Jeff Sloan, Victor Montori, Noor Asi, Abd Moain Abu Dabrh, Mohammad Hassan Murad  1
Affiliations

Patient engagement in research: a systematic review

Juan Pablo Domecq et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: A compelling ethical rationale supports patient engagement in healthcare research. It is also assumed that patient engagement will lead to research findings that are more pertinent to patients' concerns and dilemmas. However; it is unclear how to best conduct this process. In this systematic review we aimed to answer 4 key questions: what are the best ways to identify patient representatives? How to engage them in designing and conducting research? What are the observed benefits of patient engagement? What are the harms and barriers of patient engagement?

Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane, EBSCO, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Business Search Premier, Academic Search Premier and Google Scholar. Included studies were published in English, of any size or design that described engaging patients or their surrogates in research design. We conducted an environmental scan of the grey literature and consulted with experts and patients. Data were analyzed using a non-quantitative, meta-narrative approach.

Results: We included 142 studies that described a spectrum of engagement. In general, engagement was feasible in most settings and most commonly done in the beginning of research (agenda setting and protocol development) and less commonly during the execution and translation of research. We found no comparative analytic studies to recommend a particular method. Patient engagement increased study enrollment rates and aided researchers in securing funding, designing study protocols and choosing relevant outcomes. The most commonly cited challenges were related to logistics (extra time and funding needed for engagement) and to an overarching worry of a tokenistic engagement.

Conclusions: Patient engagement in healthcare research is likely feasible in many settings. However, this engagement comes at a cost and can become tokenistic. Research dedicated to identifying the best methods to achieve engagement is lacking and clearly needed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Analytical framework.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Study selection process.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Methods and phases of engagement.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Seers K, Herron-Marx S, Bayliss H. The PIRICOM Study: A Systematic Review of the Conceptualisation, Measurement, Impact and Outcomes of Patients and Public Involvement in Health and Social Care Research. Warwick: University of Warwick; 2010. http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/47235/
    1. Thompson J, Barber R, Ward PR, Boote JD, Cooper CL, Armitage CJ, Jones G. Health researchers’ attitudes towards public involvement in health research. Health Expect. 2009;14(2):209–220. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Viswanathan M, Ammerman A, Eng E, Garlehner G, Lohr KN, Griffith D, Rhodes S, Samuel-Hodge C, Maty S, Lux L, Webb L, Sutton SF, Swinson T, Jackman A, Whitener L. Community-based participatory research: assessing the evidence. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ) 2004;14:1–8. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sullivan P, Goldmann D. The promise of comparative effectiveness research. JAMA. 2011;14(4):400–401. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.12. - DOI - PubMed
    1. National Institute for Health Research (INVOLVE project) [ http://www.invo.org.uk/about-involve/]

Publication types