ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2023
Evaluating the benefit of early patient and public involvement for product development and testing with small companies.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- How Do We Achieve Impactful Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement in Statistical Methodology Research? A Qualitative Research Protocol.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Evaluating Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement Activity Within the 3DPiPPIn Trial: A Qualitative Exploration of Contributors' Perspectives on Their Impact.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Engaging in purposeful patient and public involvement with young people living with obesity: recommendations from the ARROWS residential weekend.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Article
- Evaluating qualitative data analysis workshops from the perspective of public contributors.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- An evaluation of a public partnership project between academic institutions and young people with Black African, Asian and Caribbean heritage.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Evaluating the benefit of early patient and public involvement for product development and testing with small companies.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- A proposal to embed patient and public involvement within qualitative data collection and analysis phases of a primary care based implementation study.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is a growing understanding of the benefits of patient and public involvement (PPI), and its evaluation, in research. An online version of the CUBE PPI evaluation framework has been developed. We sought to use the CUBE to evaluate the value of early PPI with two small healthcare companies during product development.
methodsContributors were recruited online and had lived experience of either type 1 diabetes or obesity. Two 1-h sessions were run with a company developing a smartphone application to manage diabetes (DEE-EM): one with young people (YP; n = 5) and one with parents (n = 7). Two 1-h sessions were run with a company developing a weight-loss product, both with adults (n = 7 in each session). Sessions were facilitated by an independent University researcher and attended by company representatives, who presented their product. One facilitator led the evaluation of the session by giving a demonstration of the CUBE and asking simple questions in the YP session.
resultsA high proportion of contributors completed the CUBE (80.5% DEE-EM; 93% Oxford Medical Products). Responses were positive to all four CUBE dimensions (in italics). Contributors felt there were diverse ways to contribute to the sessions, and that they had a strong voice to add to the discussion. Balance was achieved regarding whose concerns (public or company) led the agenda, and contributors felt that both companies would make changes based on the discussion. The supportive attitude of both companies resulted in most contributors feeling comfortable participating in PPI sessions with the industry, while recognising the profit-making aspect of their work.
conclusionsPPI with small healthcare companies is both feasible and worthwhile. The CUBE framework facilitated the evaluation of the interaction between experts in different knowledge spaces. We provide recommendations for future projects, including considerations of who should participate and the level of implicit endorsement of the product that participation implies. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People with lived experience of type 1 diabetes or obesity were invited to contribute to one of four PPI sessions, which they then evaluated. One contributor agreed to contribute to the analysis of the evaluation data and interpretation and preparation of the manuscript.
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.