ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2021
Toward more mindful reporting of patient and public involvement in healthcare.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed.
- A rapid evaluation of the reporting and publishing practices of patient and public involvement and engagement in health research within a UK university institute.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Review
- Beyond a buzzword: the need for shared language, education, and enhanced reporting of disability inclusive co-design research.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Giving credit where credit's due - recognition of patient partners in health research.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Evaluation Tools for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Health Research: A Scoping Review.The patient · 2026Article
- Article
- Mixed identity is an identity: embracing the people involved in research partnerships.BMJ open · 2025Review
- The perspectives of people with lived experience, families, and researchers with the manuscript writing process in mental health and substance use research: a qualitative study.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Five years of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in the development and evaluation of the Pain-at-Work toolkit to support employees' self-management of chronic pain at work.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Patient and public involvement in randomised controlled trial design and implementation: a process evaluation of the linking you to support and advice (LYSA) trial.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Informing research design through patient and public involvement; patients and carers with lived experience post-hospital discharge and potential roles for general practice pharmacists.BMC research notes · 2025Article
- Co-Authoring and Reporting on Lived Experience Engagement in Mental Health and/or Substance Research: A Qualitative Study and Guidance Document.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- The Report of Engagement in Community Research (REACH) Tool: A Strategy to Promote Transparency and Improve Planning in Community-Engaged Research.Journal of participatory research methods · 2025Article
- Lived experience and family engagement in psychiatry research: A scoping review of reviews.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Ready, set, co(produce): a co-operative inquiry into co-producing research to explore adolescent health and wellbeing in the Born in Bradford Age of Wonder project.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- The co-production process of an assessment programme: Between clarifying identity and developing the quality of French-speaking Belgian community health centres.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Co-designing psychosis simulated patient scenarios with mental health stakeholders for pharmacy curricula.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2023Article
- Patient and public involvement in cancer research: A scoping review.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Research evidence and implementation gaps in the engagement of people with lived experience in mental health and substance use research: a scoping review.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- "We know that our voices are valued, and that people are actually going to listen": co-producing an evaluation of a young people's research advisory group.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in outcome selection in breast cancer and nephrology trials.Trials · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding of the value of patient and public involvement in research has grown in recent years, but so too has uncertainty about how best to practice and how best to report such involvement in research outputs. One way proposed to report such involvement is through checklists, such as the GRIPP2, which aims to improve quality, transparency, and consistency in such reporting. We critique the unproblematised use of such a tool because of two main concerns. First, being asked to complete a GRIPP2 for a recent publication felt divisive given that the service user researcher was as much a member of the authorship team as the other researchers (whose involvement did not necessitate a checklist). Second, checklists do not actually address the power imbalances and tokenism that is rife in patient and public involvement in research. Indeed, the false sense of objectivity fostered by meeting the minimum requirements of the checklist means that researchers may not go further to engage in reflexive research practices and reporting. Rather than rote use of such checklists, we recommend mindful reflexive reporting in research outputs of patient and public involvement processes. We also recommend future iterations of the GRIPP consider (a) incorporating criteria about whether the checklist is completed by or with service user researchers or not, (b) addressing criteria that position service user research as needing to be justified, and (c) expanding the "critical perspective" element of the checklist to explicitly consider power differentials.
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.