Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37128669›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2023

Adapting Patient and Public Involvement processes in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Claire Snowdon, Elizabeth Silver, Paul Charlton, Brian Devlin, Emma Greenwood, Andrew Hutchings, Susan Moug, Ravinder Vohra, Richard Grieve

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Public Involvement in a Systematic Review Project: Reporting Our Approach Using the ACTIVE Framework.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Involving Knowledge Users in Health Services Research: Collective Reflections and Learning From a National Evaluation of Recurrent Miscarriage Services.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Adapting Patient and Public Involvement processes in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Claire SnowdonDepartment of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9133-5476
Elizabeth SilverWomen and Children First, London, UK.
Paul CharltonESORT Studies, London, UK.
Brian DevlinPatient and Public Involvement (PPI), London, UK.
Emma GreenwoodPatient and Public Involvement (PPI), London, UK.
Andrew HutchingsDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Susan MougDepartment of Surgery, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley, Renfrewshire, UK.
Ravinder VohraTrent Oesophago-Gastric Unit, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, City Hospital Campus, Nottingham, UK.
Richard GrieveDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8899-1301
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBElectricity Supply Board (United Kingdom) · GBHealth First · USNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBRoyal Alexandra Hospital · GBUniversity of London · GB

Funding

Health Foundation Grant number 2301232National Institute for Health and Care Research 18/02/25
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic brought rapid and major changes to research, and those wishing to carry out Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) activities faced challenges, such as restrictions on movement and contact, illness, bereavement and risks to potential participants. Some researchers moved PPI to online settings during this time but remote consultations raise, as well as address, a number of challenges. It is important to learn from PPI undertaken in this period as face-to-face consultation may no longer be the dominant method for PPI.

methodsUK stay-at-home measures announced in March 2020 necessitated immediate revisions to the intended face-to-face methods of PPI consultation for the ESORT Study, which evaluated emergency surgery for patients with common acute conditions. PPI plans and methods were modified to all components being online. We describe and reflect on: initial plans and adaptation; recruitment; training and preparation; implementation, contextualisation and interpretation. Through first-hand accounts we show how the PPI processes were developed, experienced and viewed by different partners in the process. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionsWhile concerns have been expressed about the possible limiting effects of forgoing face-to-face contact with PPI partners, we found important benefits from the altered dynamic of the online PPI environment. There were increased opportunities for participation which might encourage the involvement of a broader demographic, and unexpected benefits in that the online platform seemed to have a 'democratising' effect on the meetings, to the benefit of the PPI processes and outcomes. Other studies may however find that their particular research context raises particular challenges for the use of online methods, especially in relation to representation and inclusion, as new barriers to participation may be raised. It is important that methodological challenges are addressed, and researchers provide detailed examples of novel methods for discussion and empirical study. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: We report a process which involved people with lived experience of emergency conditions and members of the public. A patient member was involved in the design and implementation, and two patients with lived experience contributed to the manuscript.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsHumansPatient ParticipationResearch DesignResearch PersonnelCOVID-19emergency surgerye-PPIonline consultation methodspatient and public involvementremote methods

Identifiers

PMID37128669
PMCPMC10349232
OpenAlexW4367669163

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.