Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34262878›Full record

ArticleJournal of multimorbidity and comorbidity

A protocol for the evaluation of the process and impact of embedding formal and experiential Public and Patient Involvement training in a structured PhD programme.

Louise Foley, Bridget Kiely, Aisling Croke, James Larkin, Susan M Smith, Barbara Clyne, Maria Pierce, Edel Murphy, Collaborative Doctoral Award in Multimorbidity (CDA-MM) Team

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of multimorbidity and comorbidity. 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. Evaluation of Public Involvement in Doctoral Research Using a Four-Dimensional Theoretical Framework.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Research Buddy partnership in a MD-PhD program: lessons learned.Research involvement and engagement · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  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.

Louise FoleySchool of Psychology, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Bridget KielyHRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-5752-0432
Aisling CrokeHRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-2674-7474
James LarkinHRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, Ireland.
Susan M SmithHRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-6027-2727
Barbara ClyneHRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, Ireland.
Maria PierceIndependent Researcher, Galway, Ireland.
Edel MurphyPPI Ignite Network, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Collaborative Doctoral Award in Multimorbidity (CDA-MM) Team

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncorporating Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) into doctoral research is valued by PhD scholars. The importance of providing early career researchers with appropriate education and training to develop skills to conduct meaningful involvement has been articulated. The Collaborative Doctoral Award in MultiMorbidity (CDA-MM) PhD programme embedded formal PPI training as a postgraduate education component. Four PhD scholars taking part in the CDA-MM established a PPI panel comprising people, and carers of people, living with multimorbidity (≥2 chronic conditions), presenting an opportuning for experiential PPI training. The proposed study aims to evaluate the process and impact of formal and experiential PPI training during a PhD programme.

designEmbedding PPI training in a PhD programme is a novel approach. This evaluation will include a process evaluation to provide an understanding of the workings of the PPI panel and explore the experiences of key stakeholders involved, and an impact evaluation to assess the impact of embedding PPI training in a PhD programme. This study is a longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation, conducted over 24 months. Participants include PhD scholars, PPI contributors and PhD supervisors. An independent researcher not aligned with the CDA-MM will lead the evaluation. Data collection methods include focus groups, individual interviews, an impact log and group reflections. Qualitative data will be analysed using thematic and content analysis and quantitative data will be analysed using descriptive statistics. DISCUSSION: This evaluation will report the learnings from embedding formal and experiential PPI training and education across a PhD programme.

Identifiers

PMID34262878
PMCPMC8243087

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.