Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29423276›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2018

Finding and engaging patients and the public to work collaboratively on an acute infection microbiology research public panel.

Sally Grier, David Evans, Andy Gibson, Teh Li Chin, Margaret Stoddart, Michele Kok, Richard Campbell, Val Kenny, Alasdair MacGowan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The Development of Principles for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Preclinical Spinal Cord Research: A Modified Delphi Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Applying Patient and Public Involvement in preclinical research: A co-created scoping review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
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

9 authors.

Sally Grier1Department of Infection Sciences, North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK.
David Evans2Department of Health and Social Sciences, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.
Andy Gibson2Department of Health and Social Sciences, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.
Teh Li Chin1Department of Infection Sciences, North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK.
Margaret Stoddart1Department of Infection Sciences, North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK.
Michele Kok2Department of Health and Social Sciences, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.
Richard CampbellNorth Bristol Microbiology Research Patient and Public Panel, Southmead Hosptial, Bristol, UK.
Val KennyNorth Bristol Microbiology Research Patient and Public Panel, Southmead Hosptial, Bristol, UK.
Alasdair MacGowan1Department of Infection Sciences, North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

plain english summaryIn 2015 a microbiology team in Bristol joined a European research project that aims to develop new antibiotics to fight drug resistant infections. The microbiology team were convinced of the benefits of patient and public involvement, but had found it difficult to find former patients to work with on earlier microbiology research. This paper describes how the team overcame this challenge to successfully recruit a PPI panel to develop PPI within the European project.The advice from people with experience in public involvement was to decide what criteria were desirable for panel membership, think about what the work of the panel might involve and how long the project will go on. The team decided that experience of suffering a serious acute infection would qualify people to comment on this project. Next, the team needed to identify ways of finding people to join the PPI panel.The microbiology research team tried different ways to approach potential panel members. These included distributing flyers at public research events, sending emails to potentially interested people, posting a message on the hospital Facebook page and approaching eligible people known to the team. A direct approach was the most successful method - either by email, mail or in person. Ultimately 16 people were selected to form the panel. Key factors for success were planning what the work of the panel might be, perseverance despite early lack of success, and one person having overall responsibility for setting up the panel, with the support of the whole team. ABSTRACT:

Indexed as

AntimicrobialMicrobiologyPanelPatient and public involvementRecruitment

Identifiers

PMID29423276
PMCPMC5787913

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.