↓ Skip to main content

Keeping it credible in cohort multiple Randomised Controlled Trials: the Community Ageing Research 75+ (CARE 75+) study model of patient and public involvement and engagement

Overview of attention for article published in Research Involvement and Engagement, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Keeping it credible in cohort multiple Randomised Controlled Trials: the Community Ageing Research 75+ (CARE 75+) study model of patient and public involvement and engagement
Published in
Research Involvement and Engagement, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40900-016-0044-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Heaven, Lesley Brown, Marilyn Foster, Andrew Clegg

Abstract

There are well documented benefits to involving patients and the public in research. However, there is little research published about their involvement in large complex studies such as cohort multiple Randomised Controlled Trials (cmRCTs). The cmRCT method establishes a group of participants, with a common characteristic (e.g. older people) who will be followed over a number of years. Other (sub) studies can also recruit from this pool of people. This method offers researchers many advantages, including being able to recruit from more hard to reach groups. However, cmRCTs also have features which can make it more complicated to involve patients and the public. For example more than one study may take place at the same time; studies may be spread out over a large geographical area and they may include a wide range of topics. In spite of these difficulties we have developed a way of working with patients, the public and researchers that provides stability over time but allows flexibility along the way. Our model of working has saved us time and money; helped us to recruit more widely, and enabled us to focus our research in areas that are important to older people with frailty. Background There is increasing guidance on how to make the most of the rich seam of data provided by large cohort studies, and growing recognition of the benefits of cohort multiple Randomised Controlled Trials (cmRCT) in health research. In contrast, there is a lack of discussion about patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in these large and complex research infrastructures. Our aim was to create a structure to enable meaningful, sustainable public involvement within the cmRCT framework. We have established a core reference group of four key individuals with extensive links to other relevant local community structures and individuals. Results Using the CARE 75+ model we have engaged with a wide variety of patients and the public in a relatively short space of time. Activities have included scrutiny of protocols and assessment tools, and process evaluations; resulting in system efficiencies, increased recruitment and a more focused research agenda. Conclusions There is a need for strong public oversight and flexible models of PPIE in cmRCTs. The model of PPIE developed in the Community Ageing Research 75+ study presents one potential way to foster expertise and enable diversity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 15 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 19 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 04 September 2016.
All research outputs
#7,146,274
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from Research Involvement and Engagement
#334
of 403 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,237
of 338,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Involvement and Engagement
#5
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 403 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 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 338,924 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 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.