% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Kowe:163172,
author = {Kowe, Antonia and Panjaitan, Hentry and Klein, Olga A and
Boccardi, Marina and Roes, Martina and Teupen, Sonja and
Teipel, Stefan},
title = {{T}he impact of participatory dementia research on
researchers: {A} systematic review.},
journal = {Dementia},
volume = {21},
number = {3},
issn = {1741-2684},
address = {Thousand Oaks, Calif. [u.a.]},
publisher = {Sage},
reportid = {DZNE-2022-00007},
pages = {1012-1031},
year = {2022},
abstract = {Participatory approaches are increasingly required and used
in research. In this review, we examined the impact
(benefits and disadvantages) of participatory dementia
research on researchers as potential key actors to
sustainably implement the participatory approach. Our aim
was to provide information on how the participatory process
could be improved. We conducted a systematic literature
review covering the Cochrane Library, PsycNet, PubMed,
Scopus, and Google Scholar. The inclusion criteria for
publications were as follows: research (1) involving people
with dementia as co-researchers, (2) including a description
or discussion of the impact of participatory research for
researchers, (3) published between 2000 and 2020, and (4) in
English. We performed a quality assessment of the included
publications. Our final review included nine publications;
three categorized as high quality, five as medium quality,
and one as low quality. Four of the publications categorized
as high or medium quality implemented participation at the
level of partnership, and two publications implemented
participation at the level of delegated power. The
beneficial impact of participatory dementia research on
researchers consisted of an increased understanding of
people with dementia that widened researchers' theoretical
knowledge and perspectives and increased their competence in
working with people with dementia. Disadvantages comprised
the required additional effort and time as well as the
difficulty of establishing a balanced relationship between
researchers and co-researchers. Disadvantages may result
from the lack of a definition and structure of participatory
research and a lack of training on both sides. More
well-designed and transparent methods of evaluating
participatory research projects are needed.},
keywords = {Dementia / Humans / co-research (Other) / dementia (Other)
/ impact (Other) / neurocognitive disorders (Other) /
neurodegenerative disorders (Other) / participatory research
(Other) / patient and public involvement (Other) /
systematic review (Other)},
cin = {AG Teipel / AG Boccardi / AG Roes / AG Teupen},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-2719)1510100 / I:(DE-2719)5000062 /
I:(DE-2719)1610003 / I:(DE-2719)5000076},
pnm = {353 - Clinical and Health Care Research (POF4-353)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-353},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:35152790},
doi = {10.1177/14713012211067020},
url = {https://pub.dzne.de/record/163172},
}