SynthesisBMJ open2019
Patient and public involvement in health research in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 82 papers, 8 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
82 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Identifying Social Media-Based Interactions That Help Adults to Adhere to Weight Loss Goals: A Systematic Review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2026Pooled it
- Barriers and Facilitators to The Involvement of Under-Represented Children and Young People (aged 8-25) in Mental Health Research - a Systematic Review.Clinical child and family psychology review · 2025Pooled it
- Facilitators of and barriers to patient and public involvement in mental health research within university settings: a systematic review and meta-synthesis.Psychological medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Leveraging artificial intelligence in the prediction, diagnosis and treatment of depression and anxiety among perinatal women in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.BMJ mental health · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluation of research co-design in health: a systematic overview of reviews and development of a framework.Implementation science : IS · 2024Pooled it
- How are health research partnerships assessed? A systematic review of outcomes, impacts, terminology and the use of theories, models and frameworks.Health research policy and systems · 2022Pooled it
- A mixed-methods systematic review of suicide prevention interventions involving multisectoral collaborations.Health research policy and systems · 2022Pooled it
- Systematic review of international Delphi surveys for core outcome set development: representation of international patients.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- The Dilemmas and Opportunities of Co-Creating Health Interventions to Fit Local Contexts: An Ethnographic Study on the Adaptation of Clinical Guidelines in Tanzania.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Trial
- Developing best practices for engaging and involving palliative care patients in research in sub-Saharan Africa.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Process and Outcome of a Primary Care Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) Programme: A Pilot Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- How, why, for whom, and in what contexts organisational and team dynamics shape, and are shaped by, service user researchers in higher education mental health research centres: a realist review protocol.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Review
- Women's involvement and engagement in climate and health research in two Global South countries - Indonesia and Malaysia: barriers and facilitators.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Meaningful or Marginal: An Integrative Review of Consumer and Community Involvement in Migrant Health Research.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- Structured patient and public involvement programme development in low- and middle-income country health research: a scoping review of evidence gaps and a framework for future practice.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Review
- Equitable partnership: patient and public involvement and engagement and community engagement in mental health research in Pakistan.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Perception of physiotherapy researchers about patient and public involvement in health research design and planning in Nigeria.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- [DNVF Memorandum Participatory Health Services Research (Part 1)].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2026Article
- Development of the RIPPLES framework for patient and public involvement in rapid evidence syntheses.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
22 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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
objectivesPatient and public involvement (PPI) is argued to lead to higher quality health research, which is more relatable to and helps empower the public. We synthesised the evidence to look for examples of PPI in health research in low/middle-income countries (LMICs), looking at levels of involvement and impact. Additionally, we considered the impact of who was undertaking the research on the level of involvement and reported impact.
designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: EMBASE, Medline and PsychINFO, along with hand-searching references, grey literature, Google search and expert advice. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Any health research with evidence of patient or public involvement, with no language restrictions dated from 1978 to 1 Dec 2017. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data relating to stage and level of involvement, as well as impact, were extracted by one researcher (NC), and a coding framework was developed using an inductive approach to examine the impact of PPI on research. Extracted data were then independently coded by a second lay researcher (RK) to validate the data being collected. Discrepancies were referred to a third independent reviewer (MT) for review and consensus reached.
resultsSixty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. The review revealed the most common stage for PPI was in research planning, and the most common level of involvement was collaboration. Most studies did not provide evidence of effectiveness or elaborate on the impact of PPI, and they tended to report impact from the researcher's perspective. Where impact was mentioned, this generally related to increased relevance to the community, empowerment of participants and alterations in study design.
conclusionsThe literature describing approaches to and impact of PPI on LMIC health research is sparse. As PPI is essential to conducting high-quality research, it should be fully reported and evaluated at the end of the research project.
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.