SynthesisPloS one2014
Current practice of public involvement activities in biomedical research and innovation: a systematic qualitative review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evaluation of research co-design in health: a systematic overview of reviews and development of a framework.Implementation science : IS · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Participatory research in health promotion: a critical review and illustration of rationales.Health promotion international · 2022Review
- Involving service users in the Birth Timing project, a data linkage study analysing the timing of births and their outcomes.International journal of population data science · 2020Article
- Involving Patient Groups in Drug Research: A Systematic Review of Reasons.Patient preference and adherence · 2020Article
- Article
- Public Involvement in Global Genomics Research: A Scoping Review.Frontiers in public health · 2019Article
- "A waste of time without patients": The views of patient representatives attending a workshop in evidence-based practice.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2018Article
- How to incorporate patient and public perspectives into the design and conduct of research.F1000Research · 2018Article
- The Public's Awareness of and Attitude Toward Research Biobanks - A Regional German Survey.Frontiers in genetics · 2018Article
- Public consultation changes guidance on the use of health-care interventions. An observational study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017Article
- Collective agency and the concept of 'public' in public involvement: A practice-oriented analysis.BMC medical ethics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA recent report from the British Nuffield Council on Bioethics associated 'emerging biotechnologies' with a threefold challenge: 1) uncertainty about outcomes, 2) diverse public views on the values and implications attached to biotechnologies and 3) the possibility of creating radical changes regarding societal relations and practices. To address these challenges, leading international institutions stress the need for public involvement activities (PIAs). The objective of this study was to assess the state of PIA reports in the field of biomedical research.
methodsPIA reports were identified via a systematic literature search. Thematic text analysis was employed for data extraction.
resultsAfter filtering, 35 public consultation and 11 public participation studies were included in this review. Analysis and synthesis of all 46 PIA studies resulted in 6 distinguishable PIA objectives and 37 corresponding PIA methods. Reports of outcome translation and PIA evaluation were found in 9 and 10 studies respectively (20% and 22%). The paper presents qualitative details. DISCUSSION: The state of PIAs on biomedical research and innovation is characterized by a broad range of methods and awkward variation in the wording of objectives. Better comparability of PIAs might improve the translation of PIA findings into further policy development. PIA-specific reporting guidelines would help in this regard. The modest level of translation efforts is another pointer to the "deliberation to policy gap". The results of this review could inform the design of new PIAs and future efforts to improve PIA comparability and outcome translation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.