↓ Skip to main content

Patient-partner engagement at the Centre de recherche du CHUS in the Province of Québec, Canada: from an intuitive methodology to outreach after three years of implementation

Overview of attention for article published in Research Involvement and Engagement, March 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Patient-partner engagement at the Centre de recherche du CHUS in the Province of Québec, Canada: from an intuitive methodology to outreach after three years of implementation
Published in
Research Involvement and Engagement, March 2021
DOI 10.1186/s40900-021-00258-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Denis Boutin, Susan C. Mastine, Luc Beaubien, Maryse Berthiaume, Denise Boilard, Jaime Borja, Edouard Botton, Janie Boulianne-Gref, Sylvie Breton, Christian-Alexandre Castellano, Gisèle Charpentier, Francois-Pierre Counil, Marie-Josée Cozmano, Pierre Dagenais, Guy Drouin, Marie-Josée Fortier, Caroline Francoeur, Louise Gagné, David Héraud, Denise Hêtu, Marie-Pier Houde, Ginette Ladouceur, Marjolaine Landry, Elisabeth Leblanc, Christine Loignon, Valéry Lussier, Annie Morin, Nathalie Ouellet, Claude Quintin, Avinash Ramnarine, Catherine Wilhelmy, Amy Svotelis, Marie-Ève Thibault, William D. Fraser, Marie-Claude Battista

Abstract

Medical societies and funding agencies strongly recommend that patients be included as partners in research publications and grant applications. Although this "top-down" approach is certainly efficient at forcing this new and desirable type of collaboration, our past experience demonstrated that it often results in an ambiguous relationship as not yet well integrated into the cultures of either patients' or the researchers'. The question our group raised from this observation was: "How to generate a cultural shift toward a fruitful and long-lasting collaboration between patients and researchers? A "bottom-up" approach was key to our stakeholders. The overall objective was to build a trusting and bidirectional-ecosystem between patients and researchers. The specific objectives were to document: 1) the steps that led to the development of the first patient-partner strategic committee within a research center in the Province of Québec; 2) the committee's achievements after 3 years. Eighteen volunteer members, 12 patient-partners and 6 clinician/institutional representatives, were invited to represent the six research themes of the Centre de recherche du CHU de Sherbrooke (CRCHUS) (Quebec, Canada). Information on the services offered by Committee was disseminated internally and to external partners. Committee members satisfaction was evaluated. From May 2017 to April 2020, members attended 29 scheduled and 6 ad hoc meetings and contributed to activities requiring over 1000 h of volunteer time in 2018-2019 and 1907 h in the 2019-2020 period. The Committee's implication spanned governance, expertise, and knowledge transfer in research. Participation in these activities increased annually at local, provincial, national and international levels. The Patient-Partner Committee collaborated with various local (n = 7), provincial (n = 6) and national (n = 4) partners. Member satisfaction with the Committee's mandate and format was 100%. The CRCHUS co-constructed a Patient-Partner Strategic Committee which resulted in meaningful bilateral, trusting and fruitful collaborations between patients, researchers and partners. The "bottom-up" approach - envisioned and implemented by the Committee, where the expertise and the needs of patients complemented those of researchers, foundations, networks and decision-makers - is key to the success of a cultural shift. The CRCHUS Committee created a hub to develop the relevant intrinsic potential aimed at changing the socio-cultural environment of science.

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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 15%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 15 56%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 15 56%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 May 2021.
All research outputs
#4,613,951
of 23,292,144 outputs
Outputs from Research Involvement and Engagement
#285
of 390 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,310
of 426,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Involvement and Engagement
#12
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,292,144 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 390 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 426,106 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.