Scholarlink

Background <p>Public involvement (PI) in research is increasingly requested, yet systematic evaluation is limited. This study evaluates whether a panel advising an Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementia’s (ADRD) Cohort Study fulfills PI quality criteria and leads to perceived Cohort Study improvement and describe lessons learned.</p> Methods <p>A panel of 49 members of the public advised the Cohort Study through questionnaires and meetings. Panelists and Cohort Study researchers completed questionnaires based on PI quality criteria as formulated in the Patient Engagement Quality Guidance Framework, specifically developed to capture insights on the quality of PI. Findings were supplemented by reflections of the panel organizers and three panelists. Additionally, we outlined the panel’s aim and design to provide a practical example of PI in ADRD research.</p> Results <p>Of 49 panelists, 43 consented for use of their data for evaluation purposes (72% female (31/43), mean age 62 years, 82% (35/43) in good health). Response rates to the evaluation questionnaire were 37% for panelists (16/43) and 67% for researchers (4/6). Most panelists reported that the panel’s purpose (95%; 15/16) and communication were (very) clear (94%; 15/16), certainly adequate resources to provide input (75%; 12/16), and sufficient transparency (87%; 14/16). All felt respected and found it easy to participate in online panel questionnaires. However, 56% (9/16) found attending in-person meetings challenging due to time or travel. Researchers reported positive impact on Cohort Study quality, e.g., improved participant information letter, yet also highlighted the required time and effort to involve a panel and suggested to improve management of panelists’ expectations. Among the lessons learned are the value of offering multiple ways to participate, and the need for more communication between all parties involved.</p> Conclusions <p>Engaging a PI panel was perceived to improve an ADRD Cohort Study and fulfilled most quality criteria from the Patient Engagement Quality Guidance Framework. However, results must be interpreted with caution due to potential consent bias.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Evaluation and lessons learned regarding Public Involvement: a panel advising on an Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia cohort study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月27日

查看全文
  • Miriam Beusink,
  • Tanja J. de Rijke,
  • Tieneke B. M. Schaaij-Visser,
  • Marja Berkhout,
  • Lidwien Kroon,
  • Marlon Smeitink,
  • Sophie M. van der Landen,
  • Kyra K. M. Kaijser,
  • Dirk-Jan Saaltink,
  • Els van der Rhee,
  • Susanne Rebers,
  • Casper de Boer,
  • Hanneke F. M. Rhodius-Meester,
  • Wiesje M. van der Flier,
  • Leonie N. C. Visser

摘要

Background

Public involvement (PI) in research is increasingly requested, yet systematic evaluation is limited. This study evaluates whether a panel advising an Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementia’s (ADRD) Cohort Study fulfills PI quality criteria and leads to perceived Cohort Study improvement and describe lessons learned.

Methods

A panel of 49 members of the public advised the Cohort Study through questionnaires and meetings. Panelists and Cohort Study researchers completed questionnaires based on PI quality criteria as formulated in the Patient Engagement Quality Guidance Framework, specifically developed to capture insights on the quality of PI. Findings were supplemented by reflections of the panel organizers and three panelists. Additionally, we outlined the panel’s aim and design to provide a practical example of PI in ADRD research.

Results

Of 49 panelists, 43 consented for use of their data for evaluation purposes (72% female (31/43), mean age 62 years, 82% (35/43) in good health). Response rates to the evaluation questionnaire were 37% for panelists (16/43) and 67% for researchers (4/6). Most panelists reported that the panel’s purpose (95%; 15/16) and communication were (very) clear (94%; 15/16), certainly adequate resources to provide input (75%; 12/16), and sufficient transparency (87%; 14/16). All felt respected and found it easy to participate in online panel questionnaires. However, 56% (9/16) found attending in-person meetings challenging due to time or travel. Researchers reported positive impact on Cohort Study quality, e.g., improved participant information letter, yet also highlighted the required time and effort to involve a panel and suggested to improve management of panelists’ expectations. Among the lessons learned are the value of offering multiple ways to participate, and the need for more communication between all parties involved.

Conclusions

Engaging a PI panel was perceived to improve an ADRD Cohort Study and fulfilled most quality criteria from the Patient Engagement Quality Guidance Framework. However, results must be interpreted with caution due to potential consent bias.