| Title |
The role of the public in developing interventions: a reflection and critique of a cancer clinical trials unit’s model
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s66734 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jim Fitzgibbon, Jessica Baillie, Natalie Simon, Annmarie Nelson |
| Abstract |
The importance of involving lay representatives in research is well-recognized but is not consistently meaningfully practiced or reported. Although the positive outcomes of lay representative involvement can include more relevant research questions and outcomes, challenges are also apparent, including tokenistic involvement by research teams. A Cancer Research UK-funded and National Cancer Research Institute-registered cancer clinical trials unit in the United Kingdom established a program of work to promote genuine and consistent involvement of lay representatives (or "research partners") as part of the research team. Furthermore, a volunteer was employed to recruit and coordinate the research partners in partnership with a national agency for public involvement in health and social care research in Wales. This article reports on the development of this project and how it will be formally evaluated. Recommendations for involving lay representatives are also posed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 25 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 21% |
| Librarian | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 21% |
| Unknown | 8 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 29% |
| Psychology | 2 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 18% |
| Unknown | 9 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 18 November 2014.
All research outputs
#16,580,157
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#987
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,529
of 273,831 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#15
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 273,831 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.