ArticleBJPsych open2023
The impact of patient involvement on participant opinions of information sheets.
Article in BJPsych open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unpacking the Impact and Experience of Working With Lived Experience Partners in Mental Health Research-Exploring Research Team and Public Partner Perspectives.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Do patients and the public understand and feel engaged and valued after reading outcome set study invitations? A UK qualitative study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Readability analysis of AAOS and ASSH shoulder and elbow patient education online content: A 9-year follow-up study.Bulletin of the Hospital for Joint Disease (2013) · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) groups can provide valuable input to create more accessible study documents with less jargon. However, we don't know whether this procedure improves accessibility for potential participants.
aimsWe assessed whether participant information sheets were rated as more accessible after PPI review and which aspects of information sheets and study design were important to mental health patients compared with a control group with no mental health service use.
methodThis was a double-blind quasi-experimental study using a mixed-methods explanatory design. Patients and control participants quantitatively rated pre- and post-review documents. Semi-structured interviews were thematically analysed to gain qualitative feedback on opinions of information sheets and studies. Two-way multivariate analysis of variance was used to detect differences in ratings between pre- and post-review documents.
resultsWe found no significant (
conclusionsResearchers should be aware of what participants want to know about so they can create information sheets addressing these priorities, for example, explaining why the research is necessary. PPI is poorly understood by the wider population and efforts must be made to increase diversity in participation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.