Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25034612›Full record

SynthesisThe patient2014

A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities.

Jo Brett, Sophie Staniszewska, Carole Mockford, Sandra Herron-Marx, John Hughes, Colin Tysall, Rashida Suleman

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The patient, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07110779 (Telenursing in Coronary Artery Disease), which is not on this map. Cited by 464 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
464citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT07110779 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Telenursing in Coronary Artery Disease: Randomized Clinical Trial and Patient Collaboration

TypeinterventionalSponsorFernanda Maria Alves LimaRan2025 to 2026Enrolled150ConditionsCoronary Artery Disease, Cardiovascular DiseasesArmsTelenursing consultation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

464 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in Otolaryngology research: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Evaluating Process and Outcomes of Public Involvement in Applied Health and Social Care Research: A Rapid Systematic Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Article
  16. Co-Designing Wellbeing Initiatives With Rural Adolescents: What Works, What Doesn't, and Why.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

404 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Jo BrettRoyal College of Nursing Research Institute, Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK, J.Brett@warwick.ac.uk.
Sophie Staniszewska
Carole Mockford
Sandra Herron-Marx
John Hughes
Colin Tysall
Rashida Suleman

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePatient and public involvement (PPI) in research has expanded nationally and internationally over the last decade, and recently there has been significant attention given to understanding its impact on research. Less attention has been given to the impact of PPI on the people involved, yet it has been shown that the success of PPI in research can be reliant on the processes of engagement between these individuals and communities. This paper therefore critically explores the impact of PPI on service users, researchers and communities involved in health and social care research. DATA SOURCES: Searches were undertaken from 1995 to April 2012 in the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane library, CINAHL, HMIC and HELMIS. Searches were undertaken for grey literature using the databases InvoNet and NHS Evidence. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they included the impact of PPI on individual service users, researchers or communities under research. Studies were excluded if they were in a foreign language (unless they were deemed critical to the systematic review) or were in children and adolescent services. STUDY APPRAISAL: Data were extracted using a narrative synthesis, and quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. MAIN

resultsService users reported feeling empowered and valued, gaining confidence and life skills. Researchers developed a greater understanding and insight into their research area, gaining respect and a good rapport with the community. The community involved in research became more aware and knowledgeable about their condition. However, lack of preparation and training led some service users to feel unable to contribute to the research, while other service users and communities reported feeling overburdened with the work involved. Researchers reported difficulties in incorporating PPI in meaningful ways due to lack of money and time.

conclusionThis is the first international systematic review to focus on the impact of PPI on the people involved in the process. The beneficial and challenging impacts reported highlight the importance of optimising the context and processes of involvement, so creating the potential for PPI to impact positively on the research itself.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchCommunity ParticipationHealth Services ResearchHumansPatient ParticipationResearch Personnel

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.