Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34852018›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Value, transparency, and inclusion: A values-based study of patient involvement in musculoskeletal research.

E Bradshaw, K Whale, A Burston, V Wylde, R Gooberman-Hill

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

E BradshawUniversity of Bristol and University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom.
K WhaleMusculoskeletal Research Unit, Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0012-7103
A BurstonMusculoskeletal Research Unit, Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
V WyldeMusculoskeletal Research Unit, Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
R Gooberman-HillMusculoskeletal Research Unit, Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0613-20001Versus Arthritis
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient and public involvement work (PPI) is essential to good research practice. Existing research indicates that PPI offers benefits to research design, conduct, communication, and implementation of findings. Understanding how PPI works and its value helps to provide information about best practice and highlight areas for further development. This study used a values-based approach to reporting PPI at a Research Unit focused on musculoskeletal conditions within a UK medical school.

methodsThe study was conducted between October 2019 and January 2020 using Gradinger's value system framework as a theoretical basis. The framework comprises three value systems each containing five clusters. All PPI members and researchers who had attended PPI groups were invited to participate. Participants completed a structured questionnaire based on the value system framework; PPI members also provided further information through telephone interviews. Data were deductively analysed using a framework approach with data mapped onto value systems.

resultsTwelve PPI members and 17 researchers took part. Views about PPI activity mapped onto all three value systems. PPI members felt empowered to provide their views, and that their opinions were valued by researchers. It was important to PPI members that they were able to 'give back' and to do something positive with their experiences. Researchers would have liked the groups to be more representative of the wider population, patients highlighted that groups could include more younger members. Researchers recognised the value of PPI, and the study highlighted areas where researchers members might benefit from further awareness.

conclusionsThree areas for development were identified: (i) facilitating researcher engagement in training about the value and importance of PPI in research; (ii) support for researchers to reflect on the role that PPI plays in transparency of healthcare research; (iii) work to further explore and address aspects of diversity and inclusion in PPI.

Indexed as

Cluster AnalysisDatabases, FactualHealth Services ResearchHumansMusculoskeletal SystemPatient ParticipationSample SizeSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID34852018
PMCPMC8635367
OpenAlexW3217036123

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.