Table 5 Thematic grouping of text-based responses describing why/why not the ICMJE should be revised to consider patient partners
Category | N (%)a | Example statements |
|---|---|---|
Clearer definition(s) of patient contributions needed | 7 (22.6) | “Guidelines should clearly state the terms and conditions for the patient as an author or a partner author.” “Providing clarity would improve editors’ and authors’ confidence to include patients in research.” |
Criteria needs to be revised to protect patients | 3 (9.7) | “It could take into account the power relations and distributions of patients.” |
Depends on certain circumstances | 5 (16.1) | “But to limited extent. In a clinical trial role should be limited. In case report, may be role should be more.” |
Not a common issue | 3 (9.7) | “How common is the issue of patients being involved as authors of scientific papers? If this is relatively rare then possibly mention of this in the guidelines would be sufficient.” |
Criteria are complete | 3 (9.7) | “I think the criteria look complete from my perspective” |
Patients unlikely to meet all criteria | 6 (19.4) | “I think the accountability criteria may be challenging for some patients.” |
Other | 8 (25.8) | “But would need wider discussion in academic community” |