Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34863297›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2021

The mutual benefits of patient and public involvement in research: an example from a feasibility study (MoTaStim-Foot).

Alison M Aries, Paul Bailey, Susan M Hunter

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Public and Patient Involvement and Engagement in Clinical Trials: A Multi-Perspective Mixed-Methods Evaluation of the ROWTATE Programme.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Involving Experts by Experience in Craniofacial Research.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. A scoping review of patient and public involvement in empirical stroke research.International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alison M AriesSchool of Allied Health Professions, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK. a.m.aries@keele.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6735-3578
Paul BaileySchool of Allied Health Professions, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK.
Susan M HunterSchool of Allied Health Professions, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8844-6848
Keele University · GB

Funding

national institute for health research CDRF-2014-05-065national institute for health research Mrs Alison Ariesnational institute for health research NIHR/HEE CAT Clinical Doctoral Research Fellowship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) in research has increased steadily over the last two decades and is now both expected and appropriately resourced by many funding bodies, including the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). However, PPI in research occurs in many different capacities and numerous frameworks exist for reporting or appraising patient involvement activities. The aim of this article is to describe processes involving PPI contributions to an NIHR-funded mixed-methods feasibility study (MoTaStim-Foot). Details of PPI advisors' input, from initial identification and prioritisation of research ideas, to research delivery and dissemination, are discussed.

methodsExtensive PPI for MoTaStim-Foot is reported, with consideration of Research Design Service (RDS) advice for PPI for research, involving identifying and prioritising: design; grant proposal development; undertaking/managing research; analysing and interpreting; dissemination; implementation; monitoring and evaluation. Two PPI workshops were undertaken; success in meeting UK standards for public involvement was audited against specific success criteria by two researchers, with discussion and consideration regarding how well our PPI achieved inclusive opportunities, working together, support and learning, governance, communications and impact. How PPI can be improved for future trials was also considered. Although the advantages of PPI for researchers were considered, the benefits for PPI advisors were also analysed.

resultsUK standards for public involvement were achieved, along with seven relevant research processes suggested by the RDS. PPI advisor contributions: informed study design; contributed to successful funding; enhanced trial delivery by informing participant information sheets and daily diaries; added value through undertaking note-taker roles in focus groups and helping to analyse focus group transcripts; and assisted in dissemination. However, benefits were mutual with PPI advisors reporting feeling valued and respected, a sense of pride with renewed confidence and purpose in life.

conclusionsImportance and value of PPI, to researchers and patient advisors, have been highlighted, reinforcing the benefits of working in partnership with PPI advisors. Trial registration ISRCTN 13676183; Central Portfolio Management System ID 30449. Registered 02/01/2015, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13676183 .

Indexed as

AdvisorsPatient and public involvement (PPI)‘Patient involvement’‘Public participation’RespectValue

Identifiers

PMID34863297
PMCPMC8645133
OpenAlexW4200600525

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.