Skip to main content

CORRECTION article

Front. Dement., 18 September 2024
Sec. Dementia Care
Volume 3 - 2024 | https://doi.org/10.3389/frdem.2024.1490895

Corrigendum: A critical reflection on using the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) to evaluate patient and family partners' engagement in dementia research

This article is a correction to:

  1. A critical reflection on using the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) to evaluate patient and family partners' engagement in dementia research

    1. Read original article
\nJoey Wong, &#x;Joey Wong1,2*†Lillian Hung,&#x;Lillian Hung1,2†Cates Bayabay,Cates Bayabay1,2Karen Lok Yi Wong,Karen Lok Yi Wong2,3Annette BerndtAnnette Berndt2Jim MannJim Mann2Lily WongLily Wong2Lynn JacksonLynn Jackson2Mario GregorioMario Gregorio2
  • 1School of Nursing, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
  • 2UBC IDEA Lab, School of Nursing, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
  • 3School of Social Work, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

A Corrigendum on
A critical reflection on using the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) to evaluate patient and family partners' engagement in dementia research

by Wong, J., Hung, L., Bayabay, C., Wong, K. L. Y., Berndt, A., Mann, J., Wong, L., Jackson, L., and Gregorio, M. (2024). Front. Dement. 3:1422820. doi: 10.3389/frdem.2024.1422820

In the published article, there was an error in Figure 1 as published. Figure 1 has now been removed entirely in order to unpublish this incorrect material.

In the published article, there was an error including the scale items. A correction has been made to Section 3.2, Subsection 3.2.1, Paragraph 1. This sentence previously stated:

“For example, the question under the subtheme “Procedural Requirements”—“The project was worth the time I spent on it” and the subtheme “Contributions”—“My contributions were a good use of my time” sounds similar. Another set of identical questions is “I made an impact on the decisions in the project” under the subtheme “Benefits” and “I participated in making decisions about the project” under the subtheme “Procedural Requirements.””

The corrected sentence appears below:

“For example, the questions under the subthemes “Procedural Requirements” and “Contributions” regarding the use of time by our partners sound similar. Another set of identical questions are related to our partners' decision making in the project under the subthemes “Benefits” and “Procedural Requirements.””

In the published article, there was an error including the scale item. A correction has been made to Section 3.3, Sub-section 3.3.3, Paragraph 2. This sentence previously stated:

“One example regarding MG's comments is the question under the subtheme “Convenience”—“Throughout the project, I had sufficient time to complete my tasks for the project.””

The corrected sentence appears below:

“One example regarding MG's comments is the question under the subtheme “Convenience” about the time allowed for completing his assigned tasks in the project.”

In the published article, there was an error including the scale item. A correction has been made to Section 3.3, Sub-section 3.3.3, Paragraph 2. This sentence previously stated:

“For example, the question under “Procedural Requirements”—“In general, I had sufficient opportunities to contribute to the project.””

The corrected sentence appears below:

“One question LW mentioned regarding her contributions is under the subtheme “Procedural Requirements.””

The authors apologize for these errors and state that they do not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Keywords: patient and public involvement, aging, dementia, older adults, technology, evaluation

Citation: Wong J, Hung L, Bayabay C, Wong KLY, Berndt A, Mann J, Wong L, Jackson L and Gregorio M (2024) Corrigendum: A critical reflection on using the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) to evaluate patient and family partners' engagement in dementia research. Front. Dement. 3:1490895. doi: 10.3389/frdem.2024.1490895

Received: 03 September 2024; Accepted: 04 September 2024;
Published: 18 September 2024.

Approved by:

Frontiers Editorial Office, Frontiers Media SA, Switzerland

Copyright © 2024 Wong, Hung, Bayabay, Wong, Berndt, Mann, Wong, Jackson and Gregorio. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Joey Wong, joey.wong@ubc.ca

†These authors share first authorship

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.