Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35410628›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2022

Hidden in plain sight? Identifying patient-authored publications.

Jacqui Oliver, Dawn Lobban, Laura Dormer, Joanne Walker, Richard Stephens, Karen Woolley

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Recognising Consumers' Contributions to Health Research: Co-Designing a Remuneration Framework for the Australian Context.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

6 authors.

Jacqui OliverEnvision Pharma Group, Barons Court, 3 Swan St, Wilmslow, SK9 1HF, UK. Jacqui.Oliver@EnvisionPharma.com.
Dawn LobbanEnvision Pharma Group, Barons Court, 3 Swan St, Wilmslow, SK9 1HF, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3312-4857
Laura DormerFuture Science Group, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4868-8655
Joanne WalkerFuture Science Group, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2580-7049
Richard StephensPatient Author and Co-Editor-in-Chief of Research Involvement and Engagement, London, UK.
Karen WoolleyUniversity of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4626-7723

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient advocates are increasingly authoring peer-reviewed publications that could enhance patient care and understanding of the lived experience. Although patient authorship may be seen as an innovation in the peer-reviewed publication environment and some may not be aware of or accept patient authorship, we know patient-authored publications exist. However, identifying patient-authored publications is often challenging and time-consuming. MAIN BODY: In this commentary, we propose a definition for a patient author and patient-authored publications. We outline factors driving the increase in patient authorship, including patient interest, recognition of the value of including the patient voice and major funders recognising the importance of involving patient advocates in research. Evidence and experience-based guidance on patient authorship is emerging, and we highlight practical guidance for patient advocates on authoring peer-reviewed publications. To gain a better understanding of patient authorship, an efficient method is needed to identify patient-authored publications. A dataset on patient-authored publications could be used for a range of quantitative and qualitative research studies. The affiliation search function in PubMed can provide an easy, and reproducible way to identify a dataset of patient-authored publications in the international peer-reviewed literature, but only if patient authors include a standard metatag, (e.g. Patient Author) as one of their listed affiliations, combined with other affiliations as appropriate. From 2020 to 2021, there was a nine-fold increase in patient-authored publications in PubMed identified using the Patient Author tag. We recognize that terminology can be contentious and some authors may prefer alternative metatags. Further efforts are required to gain consensus on a suitable, standard metatag or set of metatags to use to show the true extent of patient authorship.

conclusionPatient authorship is not only legitimate, but it also exemplifies the principles of diversity, equity and inclusion. Stakeholders in the publication community need to review their policies and procedures to identify and address barriers to patient authorship. Patient advocates, funders, researchers and publishers could all help to promote awareness and acceptance of patient authorship and the merits of using a standard metatag or set of metatags, so that patient-authored publications are no longer hidden in plain sight.

Indexed as

AuthorshipDiversityEquity and inclusionPatient and public involvementPatient authorPublicationsPubMed

Identifiers

PMID35410628
PMCPMC8996208

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.