Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36534681›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Reflections on contributing to health research: A qualitative interview study with research participants and patient advisors.

Lisa Newington, Caroline M Alexander, Pippa Kirby, Rhia K Saggu, Mary Wells

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Acceptability and Feasibility of Health Measures in Preteens: Findings From the ROLO Longitudinal Birth Cohort Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Evaluation of Public Involvement in Doctoral Research Using a Four-Dimensional Theoretical Framework.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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.

Lisa NewingtonDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6954-2981
Caroline M AlexanderDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Pippa KirbyTherapies, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5289-3347
Rhia K SagguTherapies, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Mary WellsDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of Health ICHT-39
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aims of this study were to explore individuals' experiences of contributing to health research and to identify the types of impact that are perceived as important by participants or patient and public advisors. Specifically, research led by NMAHPP clinicians (Nursing, Midwifery, Allied health professions, Healthcare science, Psychology and Pharmacy).

methodsSemi-structured one-to-one interviews were conducted with health research participants and patient or public advisors. Interviewees were recruited from five UK sites and via social media. Interview transcripts were analysed using Thematic Analysis to identify key themes and areas of disagreement.

resultsTwenty-one interviews were completed, and four main themes were identified. The first, optimising research experiences, included personal reflections and broader recommendations to improve participant experiences. The second, connecting health research with healthcare, described research as key for the continued development of healthcare, but illustrated that communication between research teams, participants, and clinicians could be improved. The third theme explored the personal impacts of contributing to research, with interviewees recalling common positive experiences. The final theme discussed capturing research impacts. Interviewees highlighted potential priorities for different stakeholders, but emphasised that financial impacts should not be the sole factor.

conclusionIndividuals who were involved in NMAHPP health research recalled positive experiences and reported good relationships with their research teams. They felt that their contributions were valued. Suggested strategies to optimise the research experience focused on simplifying documentation, clear signposting of the research activities involved, and feedback on the research findings. Routine sharing of relevant research data with clinicians was also recommended. Personal impacts included a deeper understanding of their health condition or health more broadly, and increased confidence interacting with healthcare and other professionals. These findings will be used to inform development of a framework to capture the impact of NMAHPP research.

Indexed as

PatientsPharmaciesCommunicationHealth FacilitiesHumansQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID36534681
PMCPMC9762575

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.