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.
Statements
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.
Summary
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
Volume
3 - 2024
Updates
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.