An empirically based conceptual framework for fostering meaningful patient engagement in research
Background Patient engagement in research (PEIR) is promoted to improve the relevance and quality of health research, but has little conceptualization derived from empirical data. Objective To address this issue, we sought to develop an empirically based conceptual framework for meaningful PEIR foun...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy 2018-02, Vol.21 (1), p.396-406 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 406 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 396 |
container_title | Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy |
container_volume | 21 |
creator | Hamilton, Clayon B. Hoens, Alison M. Backman, Catherine L. McKinnon, Annette M. McQuitty, Shanon English, Kelly Li, Linda C. |
description | Background
Patient engagement in research (PEIR) is promoted to improve the relevance and quality of health research, but has little conceptualization derived from empirical data.
Objective
To address this issue, we sought to develop an empirically based conceptual framework for meaningful PEIR founded on a patient perspective.
Methods
We conducted a qualitative secondary analysis of in‐depth interviews with 18 patient research partners from a research centre‐affiliated patient advisory board. Data analysis involved three phases: identifying the themes, developing a framework and confirming the framework. We coded and organized the data, and ed, illustrated, described and explored the emergent themes using thematic analysis. Directed content analysis was conducted to derive concepts from 18 publications related to PEIR to supplement, confirm or refute, and extend the emergent conceptual framework. The framework was reviewed by four patient research partners on our research team.
Results
Participants’ experiences of working with researchers were generally positive. Eight themes emerged: procedural requirements, convenience, contributions, support, team interaction, research environment, feel valued and benefits. These themes were interconnected and formed a conceptual framework to explain the phenomenon of meaningful PEIR from a patient perspective. This framework, the PEIR Framework, was endorsed by the patient research partners on our team.
Conclusions
The PEIR Framework provides guidance on aspects of PEIR to address for meaningful PEIR. It could be particularly useful when patient‐researcher partnerships are led by researchers with little experience of engaging patients in research. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/hex.12635 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5750689</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A710787824</galeid><sourcerecordid>A710787824</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5385-93e25654216939a52cf64d49588ff6a0acb615fa37e28a7f1c96421c058df7263</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kl1vFCEUhidGY2v1wj9gJvFGL3bLx_B1Y7JpamvSxBtNvCMsc5ilzsAIM63772W7a7VGhRAIPOeFc3ir6iVGS1za6Qa-LzHhlD2qjjHlaiE4YY8Pa84wPaqe5XyNEBZUiqfVEZFKNg1ix5VZhRqG0SdvTd9v67XJ0NY2BgvjNJu-dskMcBvT19rFVEaeIPnQ1QOYUGY39_VoJg9hqiF0poNht_ShTpDBJLt5Xj1xps_w4jCfVJ_fn386u1xcfbz4cLa6WlhGJVsoCoRx1hDMFVWGEet40zaKSekcN8jYNcfMGSqASCMctooX2CImWydK8ifVu73uOK8HaG15RjK9HpMfTNrqaLx-eBL8RnfxRjPBEJeqCLw5CKT4bYY86cFnC31vAsQ5a6waKVgj-A59_Qd6HecUSnqaUIQIEaLB_6OwkpTTBlHyi-pMD9oHF8vr7O5qvRIYCSkkaQq1_AtVeguDL98Fzpf9BwFv9wE2xZwTuPtKYKR3rtHFNfrONYV99Xvp7smfNinA6R64Lbds_62kL8-_7CV_AHIbypU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2300227741</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>An empirically based conceptual framework for fostering meaningful patient engagement in research</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Hamilton, Clayon B. ; Hoens, Alison M. ; Backman, Catherine L. ; McKinnon, Annette M. ; McQuitty, Shanon ; English, Kelly ; Li, Linda C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Hamilton, Clayon B. ; Hoens, Alison M. ; Backman, Catherine L. ; McKinnon, Annette M. ; McQuitty, Shanon ; English, Kelly ; Li, Linda C.</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Patient engagement in research (PEIR) is promoted to improve the relevance and quality of health research, but has little conceptualization derived from empirical data.
Objective
To address this issue, we sought to develop an empirically based conceptual framework for meaningful PEIR founded on a patient perspective.
Methods
We conducted a qualitative secondary analysis of in‐depth interviews with 18 patient research partners from a research centre‐affiliated patient advisory board. Data analysis involved three phases: identifying the themes, developing a framework and confirming the framework. We coded and organized the data, and ed, illustrated, described and explored the emergent themes using thematic analysis. Directed content analysis was conducted to derive concepts from 18 publications related to PEIR to supplement, confirm or refute, and extend the emergent conceptual framework. The framework was reviewed by four patient research partners on our research team.
Results
Participants’ experiences of working with researchers were generally positive. Eight themes emerged: procedural requirements, convenience, contributions, support, team interaction, research environment, feel valued and benefits. These themes were interconnected and formed a conceptual framework to explain the phenomenon of meaningful PEIR from a patient perspective. This framework, the PEIR Framework, was endorsed by the patient research partners on our team.
Conclusions
The PEIR Framework provides guidance on aspects of PEIR to address for meaningful PEIR. It could be particularly useful when patient‐researcher partnerships are led by researchers with little experience of engaging patients in research.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1369-6513</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1369-7625</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/hex.12635</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28984405</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Arthritis ; Caregivers ; Collaboration ; Community Participation ; Concepts ; conceptual framework ; Content analysis ; Data analysis ; Demography ; Education ; Empirical analysis ; Empowerment ; Female ; Health status ; Humans ; Information management ; Interviews ; Interviews as Topic ; Knowledge ; Male ; Medical research ; Medicine, Experimental ; Middle Aged ; Original Research Paper ; Original Research Papers ; Participation ; Partnerships ; patient and public involvement ; patient engagement in research ; Patient Participation ; Patients ; patient‐oriented research ; Qualitative analysis ; Qualitative Research ; Research Design ; Research Personnel ; Researchers ; Secondary analysis ; Teams ; Working groups</subject><ispartof>Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2018-02, Vol.21 (1), p.396-406</ispartof><rights>2017 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2017 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2018. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5385-93e25654216939a52cf64d49588ff6a0acb615fa37e28a7f1c96421c058df7263</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5385-93e25654216939a52cf64d49588ff6a0acb615fa37e28a7f1c96421c058df7263</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6852-3436</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5750689/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5750689/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,728,781,785,865,886,1418,11567,12851,27929,27930,31004,45579,45580,46057,46481,53796,53798</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28984405$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hamilton, Clayon B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoens, Alison M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Backman, Catherine L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McKinnon, Annette M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McQuitty, Shanon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>English, Kelly</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Linda C.</creatorcontrib><title>An empirically based conceptual framework for fostering meaningful patient engagement in research</title><title>Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy</title><addtitle>Health Expect</addtitle><description>Background
Patient engagement in research (PEIR) is promoted to improve the relevance and quality of health research, but has little conceptualization derived from empirical data.
Objective
To address this issue, we sought to develop an empirically based conceptual framework for meaningful PEIR founded on a patient perspective.
Methods
We conducted a qualitative secondary analysis of in‐depth interviews with 18 patient research partners from a research centre‐affiliated patient advisory board. Data analysis involved three phases: identifying the themes, developing a framework and confirming the framework. We coded and organized the data, and ed, illustrated, described and explored the emergent themes using thematic analysis. Directed content analysis was conducted to derive concepts from 18 publications related to PEIR to supplement, confirm or refute, and extend the emergent conceptual framework. The framework was reviewed by four patient research partners on our research team.
Results
Participants’ experiences of working with researchers were generally positive. Eight themes emerged: procedural requirements, convenience, contributions, support, team interaction, research environment, feel valued and benefits. These themes were interconnected and formed a conceptual framework to explain the phenomenon of meaningful PEIR from a patient perspective. This framework, the PEIR Framework, was endorsed by the patient research partners on our team.
Conclusions
The PEIR Framework provides guidance on aspects of PEIR to address for meaningful PEIR. It could be particularly useful when patient‐researcher partnerships are led by researchers with little experience of engaging patients in research.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Arthritis</subject><subject>Caregivers</subject><subject>Collaboration</subject><subject>Community Participation</subject><subject>Concepts</subject><subject>conceptual framework</subject><subject>Content analysis</subject><subject>Data analysis</subject><subject>Demography</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Empirical analysis</subject><subject>Empowerment</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health status</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Information management</subject><subject>Interviews</subject><subject>Interviews as Topic</subject><subject>Knowledge</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medicine, Experimental</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Original Research Paper</subject><subject>Original Research Papers</subject><subject>Participation</subject><subject>Partnerships</subject><subject>patient and public involvement</subject><subject>patient engagement in research</subject><subject>Patient Participation</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>patient‐oriented research</subject><subject>Qualitative analysis</subject><subject>Qualitative Research</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>Research Personnel</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>Secondary analysis</subject><subject>Teams</subject><subject>Working groups</subject><issn>1369-6513</issn><issn>1369-7625</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kl1vFCEUhidGY2v1wj9gJvFGL3bLx_B1Y7JpamvSxBtNvCMsc5ilzsAIM63772W7a7VGhRAIPOeFc3ir6iVGS1za6Qa-LzHhlD2qjjHlaiE4YY8Pa84wPaqe5XyNEBZUiqfVEZFKNg1ix5VZhRqG0SdvTd9v67XJ0NY2BgvjNJu-dskMcBvT19rFVEaeIPnQ1QOYUGY39_VoJg9hqiF0poNht_ShTpDBJLt5Xj1xps_w4jCfVJ_fn386u1xcfbz4cLa6WlhGJVsoCoRx1hDMFVWGEet40zaKSekcN8jYNcfMGSqASCMctooX2CImWydK8ifVu73uOK8HaG15RjK9HpMfTNrqaLx-eBL8RnfxRjPBEJeqCLw5CKT4bYY86cFnC31vAsQ5a6waKVgj-A59_Qd6HecUSnqaUIQIEaLB_6OwkpTTBlHyi-pMD9oHF8vr7O5qvRIYCSkkaQq1_AtVeguDL98Fzpf9BwFv9wE2xZwTuPtKYKR3rtHFNfrONYV99Xvp7smfNinA6R64Lbds_62kL8-_7CV_AHIbypU</recordid><startdate>201802</startdate><enddate>201802</enddate><creator>Hamilton, Clayon B.</creator><creator>Hoens, Alison M.</creator><creator>Backman, Catherine L.</creator><creator>McKinnon, Annette M.</creator><creator>McQuitty, Shanon</creator><creator>English, Kelly</creator><creator>Li, Linda C.</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>John Wiley and Sons Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6852-3436</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201802</creationdate><title>An empirically based conceptual framework for fostering meaningful patient engagement in research</title><author>Hamilton, Clayon B. ; Hoens, Alison M. ; Backman, Catherine L. ; McKinnon, Annette M. ; McQuitty, Shanon ; English, Kelly ; Li, Linda C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5385-93e25654216939a52cf64d49588ff6a0acb615fa37e28a7f1c96421c058df7263</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Arthritis</topic><topic>Caregivers</topic><topic>Collaboration</topic><topic>Community Participation</topic><topic>Concepts</topic><topic>conceptual framework</topic><topic>Content analysis</topic><topic>Data analysis</topic><topic>Demography</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Empirical analysis</topic><topic>Empowerment</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health status</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Information management</topic><topic>Interviews</topic><topic>Interviews as Topic</topic><topic>Knowledge</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medicine, Experimental</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Original Research Paper</topic><topic>Original Research Papers</topic><topic>Participation</topic><topic>Partnerships</topic><topic>patient and public involvement</topic><topic>patient engagement in research</topic><topic>Patient Participation</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>patient‐oriented research</topic><topic>Qualitative analysis</topic><topic>Qualitative Research</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>Research Personnel</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>Secondary analysis</topic><topic>Teams</topic><topic>Working groups</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hamilton, Clayon B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoens, Alison M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Backman, Catherine L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McKinnon, Annette M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McQuitty, Shanon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>English, Kelly</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Linda C.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hamilton, Clayon B.</au><au>Hoens, Alison M.</au><au>Backman, Catherine L.</au><au>McKinnon, Annette M.</au><au>McQuitty, Shanon</au><au>English, Kelly</au><au>Li, Linda C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>An empirically based conceptual framework for fostering meaningful patient engagement in research</atitle><jtitle>Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy</jtitle><addtitle>Health Expect</addtitle><date>2018-02</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>396</spage><epage>406</epage><pages>396-406</pages><issn>1369-6513</issn><eissn>1369-7625</eissn><abstract>Background
Patient engagement in research (PEIR) is promoted to improve the relevance and quality of health research, but has little conceptualization derived from empirical data.
Objective
To address this issue, we sought to develop an empirically based conceptual framework for meaningful PEIR founded on a patient perspective.
Methods
We conducted a qualitative secondary analysis of in‐depth interviews with 18 patient research partners from a research centre‐affiliated patient advisory board. Data analysis involved three phases: identifying the themes, developing a framework and confirming the framework. We coded and organized the data, and ed, illustrated, described and explored the emergent themes using thematic analysis. Directed content analysis was conducted to derive concepts from 18 publications related to PEIR to supplement, confirm or refute, and extend the emergent conceptual framework. The framework was reviewed by four patient research partners on our research team.
Results
Participants’ experiences of working with researchers were generally positive. Eight themes emerged: procedural requirements, convenience, contributions, support, team interaction, research environment, feel valued and benefits. These themes were interconnected and formed a conceptual framework to explain the phenomenon of meaningful PEIR from a patient perspective. This framework, the PEIR Framework, was endorsed by the patient research partners on our team.
Conclusions
The PEIR Framework provides guidance on aspects of PEIR to address for meaningful PEIR. It could be particularly useful when patient‐researcher partnerships are led by researchers with little experience of engaging patients in research.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>28984405</pmid><doi>10.1111/hex.12635</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6852-3436</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1369-6513 |
ispartof | Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2018-02, Vol.21 (1), p.396-406 |
issn | 1369-6513 1369-7625 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5750689 |
source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Access via Wiley Online Library; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection); PubMed Central |
subjects | Analysis Arthritis Caregivers Collaboration Community Participation Concepts conceptual framework Content analysis Data analysis Demography Education Empirical analysis Empowerment Female Health status Humans Information management Interviews Interviews as Topic Knowledge Male Medical research Medicine, Experimental Middle Aged Original Research Paper Original Research Papers Participation Partnerships patient and public involvement patient engagement in research Patient Participation Patients patient‐oriented research Qualitative analysis Qualitative Research Research Design Research Personnel Researchers Secondary analysis Teams Working groups |
title | An empirically based conceptual framework for fostering meaningful patient engagement in research |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-14T19%3A51%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=An%20empirically%20based%20conceptual%20framework%20for%20fostering%20meaningful%20patient%20engagement%20in%20research&rft.jtitle=Health%20expectations%20:%20an%20international%20journal%20of%20public%20participation%20in%20health%20care%20and%20health%20policy&rft.au=Hamilton,%20Clayon%20B.&rft.date=2018-02&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=396&rft.epage=406&rft.pages=396-406&rft.issn=1369-6513&rft.eissn=1369-7625&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/hex.12635&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA710787824%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2300227741&rft_id=info:pmid/28984405&rft_galeid=A710787824&rfr_iscdi=true |