SynthesisHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2017
Supporting public involvement in interview and other panels: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Exploring the theory, barriers and enablers for patient and public involvement across health, social care and patient safety: a systematic review of reviews.Health research policy and systems · 2021Pooled it
- The CIRCULAR model: advancing public health through citizen science initiated clinical and mechanistic research in atrial fibrillation.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Exploratory Research With a Health Consumer Group on Social Robot Use Among Older Adults: Qualitative Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Co-Designing an Engagement Strategy to Include the Voices of a Minority Group in Assessing the Quality of Maternity and Neonatal Care.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Giving an account of patients' experience: A qualitative study on the care process of hip and knee osteoarthritis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- Co-development and Usability Testing of Research 101: A Patient-Oriented Research Curriculum in Child Health (PORCCH) E-Learning Module for Patients and Families.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
- Article
- Formalising the induction of patient and public involvement contributors on trial oversight committees.Research involvement and engagement · 2021Article
- The 'nuts and bolts' of including service users and carers in the recruitment of health and social work students in an English university-An interdisciplinary critique.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
- Scoping review protocol: is there a role for physical activity interventions in the treatment pathway of bladder cancer?BMJ open · 2019Article
- User involvement in adolescents' mental healthcare: protocol for a systematic review.BMJ open · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMembers of the public are increasingly being invited to become members of a variety of different panels and boards.
objectiveThis study aimed to systematically search the literature to identify studies relating to support or training provided to members of the public who are asked to be members of an interview panel. SEARCH STRATEGY: A systematic search for published and unpublished studies was carried out from June to September 2015. The search methods included electronic database searching, reference list screening, citation searching and scrutinizing online sources. INCLUSION CRITERIA: We included studies of any design including published and unpublished documents which outlined preparation or guidance relating to public participants who were members of interview panels or representatives on other types of panels or committees. DATA SYNTHESIS: Results were synthesised via narrative methods. MAIN
resultsThirty-six documents were included in the review. Scrutiny of this literature highlighted ten areas which require consideration when including members of the public on interview panels: financial resources; clarity of role; role in the interview process; role in evaluation; training; orientation/induction; information needs; terminology; support; and other public representative needs such as timing, accessibility and support with information technology. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsThe results of the review emphasize a range of elements that need to be fully considered when planning the involvement of public participants on interview panels. It highlights potential issues relating to the degree of involvement of public representatives in evaluating/grading decisions and the need for preparation and on-going support.
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.