ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2018
Reciprocal relationships and the importance of feedback in patient and public involvement: A mixed methods study.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers.
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
57 citing papers in PubMed.
- Conservative treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis in children: the CONTRACT feasibility study, including feasibility RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2021Trial
- "It gives me confidence and value": evaluating All_Ears@UoS patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group three years on.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Balancing Trade-Offs in Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement in Rapid Evaluation: Reflections and Lessons.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Reducing tokenism in patient and public involvement by integrating the Gothenburg person-centred care framework, relational bridges and impact log - a co-produced position paper.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Navigating Long-Term Co-Creative Research With Young Adults Diagnosed With Cancer: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Exploring Stakeholder Involvement in Intervention Implementation Studies: Systematic Evidence Synthesis With an Evidence Gap Map Approach.Evaluation & the health professions · 2026Review
- Development of a Patient and Carer Advisory Board to Co-Design Health Services Research for the Quality of Care of People With Dementia.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Putting FUN into involvement: feedback user needs in the design of a mobile phone app for people with long-term conditions.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Reflections on the impact of the Lived Experience Group in the James Lind Alliance Palliative and End of Life Care Priority Setting Partnership Refresh.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Experience, Process, and Impact of Involving Informal Caregivers of People With Dementia as Public Contributors to Inform the Development of a Complex Intervention: A Mixed-Methods Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Article
- Creating the conditions for meaningful and effective PPIE in community-based public health research: learning from a UK-wide lived experience panel.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Public Involvement in a Systematic Review Project: Reporting Our Approach Using the ACTIVE Framework.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Supporting consumer engagement in health research about chronic conditions: a scoping review of evidence-based resources.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
- The Importance of Lived Experience: A Scoping Review on the Value of Patient and Public Involvement in Health Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- "How would you handle this?" The impact of embedding early patient and public involvement in a biomechanical computational engineering doctoral research project.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Article
- How Do We Get the Public Into Public Health Research? Learnings and Key Recommendations From Initiating a Community Involvement Project Scheme.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Review
- Training and peer-group coaching for pairs of researchers and patient representatives to support continuous two-way learning.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- "I am there just to get on with it": a qualitative study on the labour of the patient and public involvement workforce.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReciprocal relationships between researchers and patient and public involvement (PPI) contributors can enable successful PPI in research. However, research and anecdotal evidence suggest that researchers do not commonly provide feedback to PPI contributors thus preventing them from knowing whether, how or where their contributions were useful to researchers and research overall.
aimsThe aim of this study was to explore the variation, types, importance of, and satisfaction with feedback given by researchers to PPI contributors in six PPI groups in England, and identify the barriers to the process of feedback.
methodsAn explanatory mixed methods sequential study design with a questionnaire survey followed by semi-structured interviews with researchers and PPI contributors in six PPI groups. PPI contributors were involved in all stages of the research process.
resultsResearchers do not routinely give feedback to PPI contributors. Feedback was found to have different meanings: an acknowledgement, impact and study success and progress. PPI contributors who receive feedback are motivated for further involvement; it supports their learning and development and prompts researchers to reflect on PPI impact. The importance of the role of a PPI lead or coordinator to facilitate the process of providing feedback was also highlighted.
conclusionThis study found no generic way to give feedback indicating that mutual feedback expectations should be discussed at the outset. PPI feedback needs to become integral to the research process with appropriate time and resources allocated. PPI feedback can be seen as a key indicator of mature, embedded PPI in research.
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.