Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35449105›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2022

Key stakeholders' views, experiences and expectations of patient and public involvement in healthcare professions' education: a qualitative study.

Megan Cullen, Cathal Cadogan, Susmi George, Siobhan Murphy, Siobhan Freeney, Robbie Fitzpatrick, Judith Strawbridge

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Public participation in healthcare students' education: An umbrella review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Public Involvement in the Evaluation of Local Government Public Health Interventions in the UK: Lessons From PHIRST Insight.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

7 authors.

Megan CullenSchool of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, 123 St Stephen's Green, Dublin, Ireland. mecullen@tcd.ie.
Cathal CadoganSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Susmi GeorgeSchool of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, 123 St Stephen's Green, Dublin, Ireland.
Siobhan MurphyDepartment of Surgery, RCSI Education and Research Centre, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Beaumont Hospital, Beaumont, Dublin 9, Ireland.
Siobhan FreeneyPatient and Public Representative, Dublin, Ireland.
Robbie FitzpatrickPatient and Public Representative, Dublin, Ireland.
Judith StrawbridgeSchool of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, 123 St Stephen's Green, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients and the public have an integral role in educating healthcare professionals. Authentic partnerships between higher education institutions and patients and the public are essential. This study examined key stakeholders' views, experiences and expectations of patient and public involvement (PPI) including the nature of the involvement and requirements for partnership.

methodsPurposive and snowball sampling was used to recruit key stakeholders, including patients and members of the public involved in health professions education, and academics interested in PPI. Focus groups were held with patient and public participants, providing the opportunity to gain multiple perspectives in an interactive group setting. Academics with an interest in PPI were interviewed using a semi-structured approach. Topic guides were derived from the literature and piloted prior to data collection. Focus groups and interviews were conducted until data saturation was achieved. All data was audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and thematically analysed.

resultsFour focus groups were conducted involving 23 patient and public participants (median number of participants per focus group of 6). Nine interviews were conducted with academics (face-to-face [n = 8] or by telephone [n = 1]). Five themes were developed: previous experiences of PPI, training requirements, challenges/barriers to PPI, facilitators of PPI and future ideas for PPI. All participants held positive views of the value of PPI. Participants had mixed views in terms of training, which depended on the level of involvement, but similar views on the challenges and facilitators for PPI in education. There was agreement that PPI requires institutional vision and investment to build strong relationships and a culture of PPI best practice.

conclusionsThere is a need for more strategic and formal involvement of patients and the public to ensure that that PPI becomes sustainably embedded in health professions education.

Indexed as

MotivationPatient ParticipationFocus GroupsHumansQualitative ResearchHealth professions educationPatient and public involvementPatient EducatorPatient Partner

Identifiers

PMID35449105
PMCPMC9026974

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.