↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Questioning patient engagement: research scientists’ perceptions of the challenges of patient engagement in a cardiovascular research network

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
Title
Questioning patient engagement: research scientists’ perceptions of the challenges of patient engagement in a cardiovascular research network
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, September 2017
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s135457
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sandra L Carroll, Gayathri Embuldeniya, Julia Abelson, Michael McGillion, Alexandre Berkesse, Jeff S Healey

Abstract

Patient engagement in research is a dominant discourse in clinical research settings as it is seen as a move toward sustainable and equitable health care systems. In Canada, a key driver is the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, which asserts that meaningful patient engagement can only be fostered when stakeholders understand its value. This study assessed researchers' perceptions of the meaning and value of patient engagement in research within a Canadian cardiovascular research network. In doing so, the secondary aim was to inform the development of a structured patient engagement initiative by identifying potential challenges and related mitigation strategies. We employed a multi-method strategy involving electronic surveys and semi-structured telephone interviews with network research scientists across Canada. Interview data were analyzed using thematic and content analysis. Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Thirty-eight electronic surveys (response rate =33%) and 16 interviews were completed with network members. Some participants were uncertain about the meaning and value of patient engagement. While voicing guarded support, four challenges relating to patient engagement were identified from the interviews: 1) identification of representative and appropriate patients, 2) uncertainty about the scope of patients' roles given concerns about knowledge discrepancies, 3) a perceived lack of evidence of the impact of patient engagement, and 4) the need for education and culture change as a prerequisite for patient engagement. Research scientists were largely concerned that patients untrained in science and tasked with conveying an authentic patient experience and being a conduit for the voices of others might unsettle a traditional model of conducting research. Concerns about patient involvement in research were related to a lack of clarity about the meaning, process, and impact of involvement. This study highlights the need for education on the meaning of patient engagement, evidence of its impact, and guidance on practical aspects of implementation within this research community.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 101 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 12%
Student > Master 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 32 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 12%
Social Sciences 12 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 41 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 October 2017.
All research outputs
#7,118,925
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#473
of 1,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,721
of 324,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#11
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,733 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,978 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.