The Karma system is currently undergoing maintenance (Monday, January 29, 2018).
The maintenance period has been extended to 8PM EST.
Karma Credits will not be available for redeeming during maintenance.
The Journal of Participatory Medicine is a peer-reviewed, open access journal with the mission to advance the understanding and practice of participatory medicine among health care professionals and patients.
It is the Official Journal of the Society for Participatory Medicine.
The Journal's mission is to transform the culture of medicine by providing an evidence base for participatory health and medicine. It aims to advance both science and practice, focusing on six content areas: research articles, editorials, narratives, case reports, reviews, and updates on related research in other media. It explores how participation affects outcomes, resources, and relationships in healthcare; which interventions increase participation; and the types of evidence that provide the most reliable answers.
JoPM was self-published between 2009-2017 by the Society of Participatory Medicine, publishing over 200 peer-reviewed articles (Archive of pre-2017 articles). Since 2017, the journal is now proudly published by JMIR Publications, with the Society retaining editorial control (see joint SPM/JMIR Press Release).
All articles submitted after August 2017 are carefully copyedited and typeset, and XML-tagged for submission in PubMed Central and PubMed.
There are no publishing charges for unfunded research. There is a modest Article Processing Fee ($1500) in case of acceptance for grant-funded research or where authors have access to an institutional open access funds, e.g. COMPACT/COPE signatories.
Right click to copy or hit: ctrl+c (cmd+c on mac)
Background: A rural community-based Cardiology practice implemented shared decision making supported by an evidence-based decision aid booklet to improve the quality of anticoagulant therapy decisions...
Background: A rural community-based Cardiology practice implemented shared decision making supported by an evidence-based decision aid booklet to improve the quality of anticoagulant therapy decisions in patients with atrial fibrillation. Objective: To develop a practical workflow for implementation of an anticoagulant therapy decision aid and to assess the impact on patients’ knowledge and process for anticoagulant medication decision making. Methods: The organization surveyed all patients with atrial fibrillation being seen at Copley Hospital to establish a baseline level of knowledge, certainty about the decision and process for decision making. The intervention surveys included the same knowledge, certainty, process and demographic questions as the baseline surveys, but also included questions asking for feedback on the decision aid booklet. Stroke risk scores (CHA2DS2-VASc score) were calculated by Copley staff for both groups using EMR data. Results: We received 46 completed surveys in the baseline group (64% response rate) and 50 surveys in the intervention group (72% response rate). The intervention group had higher knowledge score than the baseline group (3.6 out of 4 correct answers vs 3.1, p=0.036) and Decision Process Score (2.89 out of 4 vs 2.09, p=0.0023) but similar scores on the SURE scale (3.12 out of 4 vs 3.17, p=0.79). Knowledge and Process score differences were sustained even after adjusting for co-variates in stepwise linear regression analyses. Patients with high school or lower education appeared to benefit the most from shared decision making, as demonstrated by their knowledge scores. Conclusions: It is feasible and practical to implement shared decision making supported by decision aids in a community-based Cardiology practice. Shared decision making can improve knowledge and process for decision making for patients with atrial fibrillation. Clinical Trial: None
Background: Involving certified peer specialists in all phases of intervention development and research is a high priority to advance peer-delivered services. Community-engaged research can facilitate...
Background: Involving certified peer specialists in all phases of intervention development and research is a high priority to advance peer-delivered services. Community-engaged research can facilitate the development and implementation of peer-delivered interventions; yet, little is known about the processes. We present our application of community-engaged research to inform the development and implementation of a peer-delivered mobile health (mHealth) intervention for adults with SMI. Methods: Informed by principles of community-engaged research, we developed the Academic Researchers-Certified Peer Specialists mHealth Research Continuum. Principles of community-engaged research included in the Continuum include: (1) develop a clear understanding of the purpose, goal and population involved in community change; (2) become knowledgeable about all aspects of the community; (3) interact and establish relationships with the community; (4) encourage community self-determination; (5) partner with the community; (6) respect community diversity and culture; (7) activate community assets and develop capacity; (8) maintain flexibility; and (9) commit to long-term collaboration. Results: Individuals in participating in the Academic Researchers-Certified Peer Specialists’ mHealth Research Continuum collaborated on five studies advancing peers’ roles in services delivery using mHealth and secured grant funding from a foundation to sustain their work. The Academic Researchers-Certified Peer Specialists’ mHealth Research Continuum has created a rare environment of inclusion through combining scientific expertise and certified peer specialists’ expertise to achieve a shared vision. Conclusion: This manuscript delineates a process by which academic researchers and certified peer specialist can use as a guide to participate in community-engaged research to develop and implement peer-delivered mHealth interventions in community settings.
Background: A project in North West Tasmania focussed on delivering improved stroke services through co-led redesign. The importance of including patients with communication difficulties (aphasia) in...
Background: A project in North West Tasmania focussed on delivering improved stroke services through co-led redesign. The importance of including patients with communication difficulties (aphasia) in the qualitative research was highlighted, but required the adaption of traditional interview techniques. Objective: The aim of this paper is to describe the experiences of researchers involved in the interviewing of patients with aphasia and discuss a number of approaches appropriate for working with patients with aphasia in an interview situation. Methods: Qualitative research was undertaken utilising home interviews of post-stroke patients to gain insight into their in-hospital experience following their stroke. Patients were included in the interviews based on criteria determined through matrix sampling and did not exclude patients with aphasia. Results: Patients with aphasia are valuable contributors to qualitative health services research. Conclusions: The data from the interviews of patients with aphasia were collected using different means of communication and were found to be valuable in the overall experiential account of stroke patients. Clinical Trial: Not applicable