↓ Skip to main content

Moving towards a more inclusive patient and public involvement in health research paradigm: the incorporation of a trauma-informed intersectional analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
108 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
101 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
266 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
Moving towards a more inclusive patient and public involvement in health research paradigm: the incorporation of a trauma-informed intersectional analysis
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2463-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carolyn Shimmin, Kristy D. M. Wittmeier, Josée G. Lavoie, Evan D. Wicklund, Kathryn M. Sibley

Abstract

The concept of patient engagement in health research has received growing international recognition over recent years. Yet despite some critical advancements, we argue that the concept remains problematic as it negates the very real complexities and context of people's lives. Though patient engagement conceptually begins to disrupt the identity of "researcher," and complicate our assumptions and understandings around expertise and knowledge, it continues to essentialize the identity of "patient" as a homogenous group, denying the reality that individuals' economic, political, cultural, subjective and experiential lives intersect in intricate and multifarious ways. Patient engagement approaches that do not consider the simultaneous interactions between different social categories (e.g. race, ethnicity, Indigeneity, gender, class, sexuality, geography, age, ability, immigration status, religion) that make up social identity, as well as the impact of systems and processes of oppression and domination (e.g. racism, colonialism, classism, sexism, ableism, homophobia) exclude the involvement of individuals who often carry the greatest burden of illness - the very voices traditionally less heard in health research. We contend that in order to be a more inclusive and meaningful approach that does not simply reiterate existing health inequities, it is important to reconceptualize patient engagement through a health equity and social justice lens by incorporating a trauma-informed intersectional analysis. This article provides key concepts to the incorporation of a trauma-informed intersectional analysis and important questions to consider when developing a patient engagement strategy in health research training, practice and evaluation. In redefining the identity of both "patient" and "researcher," spaces and opportunities to resist and renegotiate power within the intersubjective relations can be recognized and addressed, in turn helping to build trust, transparency and resiliency - integral to the advancement of the science of patient engagement in health research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 108 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 266 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 266 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 36 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 12%
Student > Master 31 12%
Student > Bachelor 29 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 6%
Other 49 18%
Unknown 72 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 17%
Social Sciences 45 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 12%
Psychology 25 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Other 35 13%
Unknown 79 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 86. 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 15 November 2022.
All research outputs
#496,693
of 25,402,889 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#78
of 8,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,534
of 327,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#6
of 172 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,402,889 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,646 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
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 327,775 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 172 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.