ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2020
'All hands-on deck', working together to develop UK standards for public involvement in research.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 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
31 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applying the UK standards for public involvement: reflections and lessons from case studies across the UK.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Embedding Patient and Public Engagement in a Cancer Project: Protocol for a Qualitative Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Development of the RIPPLES framework for patient and public involvement in rapid evidence syntheses.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Experiences of patients and public partners in codesign of Lynch Choices™: an evaluation study using the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS-22).Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the Bangkok Health Research and Ethics Interest Group: reflecting on the experiences of group members, researchers and facilitators participating in an urban community advisory board in Thailand.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of digitally delivered multimodal prehabilitation for cancer patients: A mixed-methods systematic review.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Barriers and solutions for healthcare professionals to involve patients as partners in oncology research: Project RISE.Future oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- [The added value of self-help-oriented research in oncology for stakeholders in Germany].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026Review
- Patient and public involvement in musculoskeletal pain research: using mutual learning to improve research quality.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2026Review
- Involving people with lived experiences in the study of a behavioral stress-recovery e-intervention for myocardial infarction patients younger than 55 with cardiac distress: a study protocol.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
- Understanding the Scope, Intent and Extent of Published Conceptual Frameworks of Frameworks for Patient and Public Involvement in Health and Social Care Research: A Rapid Scoping Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Exploring Barriers and Facilitators to Patients and Members of the Public Contributing to Rapid Health Technology Assessments for NICE: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Establishment of a patient and public involvement and engagement group to support clinical trials in Pakistan: Initial lessons learned.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Harnessing real-life experiences: the development of guidelines to communicate research findings on Developmental Coordination Disorder/dyspraxia.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Experiences and lessons learned from a patient-engagement service established by a national research consortium in the U.S. Veterans Health Administration.Learning health systems · 2024Article
- Public involvement in UK health and care research 1995-2020: reflections from a witness seminar.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE): how valuable and how hard? An evaluation of ALL_EARS@UoS PPIE group, 18 months on.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- An evaluation of a public partnership project between academic institutions and young people with Black African, Asian and Caribbean heritage.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Future directions for patient engagement in research: a participatory workshop with Canadian patient partners and academic researchers.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement in the Development of a Platform Clinical Trial for Parkinson's Disease: An Evaluation Protocol.Journal of Parkinson's disease · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPublic involvement in research is an established part of the research process in the UK, however there remain questions about what good public involvement in research looks and feels like. Until now public involvement practitioners, researchers and members of the public have looked for answers in examples shared across networks, published case studies, guidance and research articles. Pulling these strands together, the UK Standards for Public Involvement provides six statements (standards) about public involvement in research. They were produced by a partnership of organisations from Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England with contributions from involvement practitioners, public partners, researchers and research funders. MAIN BODY: Each standard has reflective questions, which are designed to encourage standard users to use approaches and behaviours that improve involvement, over time. The standards are designed to be used as a practical tool, and reflect the agreed hallmarks of good public involvement in research for example, flexibility in approaches used, shared learning, and mutual respect.The standards development process is described from the initial idea and scoping, via the appraisal of existing standard sets and integration of values and principles in public involvement in research. The collaborative writing process of and consultation on the draft standard set is described, together with what changed as a result of feedback. The initiation of a year-long testing programme with forty participating research organisations, the experiential feedback and the resulting changes to the standards is summarised.
conclusionThis commentary paper describes, in some detail, a process to develop a set of six standards for public involvement in research in the UK. Producing a complex, national public involvement initiative is not without its challenges, and in supplementary material partnership members reflect on and share their experiences of standards development. The next phase of integration and implementation is explored with concluding comments from those that tested and helped improve the standards.
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.