Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37260191›Full record

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

The benefits, challenges, and best practice for patient and public involvement in evidence synthesis: A systematic review and thematic synthesis.

Eldad Agyei-Manu, Nadege Atkins, Bohee Lee, Jasmin Rostron, Marshall Dozier, Maureen Smith, Ruth McQuillan

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 63 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Evaluating Process and Outcomes of Public Involvement in Applied Health and Social Care Research: A Rapid Systematic Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. The benefits, challenges, and best practice for patient and public involvement in evidence synthesis: A systematic review and thematic synthesis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Pooled it
  5. Bridging Lived and Expert Experience: A Qualitative Study Exploring Lived-Experience Experts' and Researchers' Experiences of Public Engagement in Cancer Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Patients as Co-Researchers in Oncology: A Qualitative Exploration of Participatory Governance.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Navigating Long-Term Co-Creative Research With Young Adults Diagnosed With Cancer: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 · 2026
    Article

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Eldad Agyei-ManuCentre for Population Health Sciences, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2712-0198
Nadege AtkinsCentre for Population Health Sciences, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0089-2937
Bohee LeeCentre for Population Health Sciences, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9671-386X
Jasmin RostronCentre for Population Health Sciences, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2960-2892
Marshall DozierCentre for Population Health Sciences, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5151-1252
Maureen SmithCochrane Consumer Network Executive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2885-7028
Ruth McQuillanCentre for Population Health Sciences, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0998-9540

Funding

None
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDespite the growing evidence on patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research, little emphasis has been placed on understanding its quality and appropriateness to evidence synthesis (ES) and systematic reviews (SR). This study aimed to synthesise qualitative evidence on the benefits, challenges, and best practices for PPI in ES/SR projects from the perspectives of patients/public and researchers.

methodsWe searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Cochrane Library and CINAHL Plus. We also searched relevant grey literature and conducted hand-searching to identify qualitative studies which report the benefits and challenges of PPI in individual ES/SR projects. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers for inclusion and appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute's Qualitative Tool. Included studies were synthesised narratively using thematic synthesis.

resultsThe literature search retrieved 9923 articles, of which eight studies were included in this review. Five themes on benefits emerged: two from patients'/public's perspective-gaining knowledge, and empowerment; and three from researchers' perspective-enhancing relevance, improving quality, and enhancing dissemination of findings. Six themes on challenges were identified: three from patients'/public's perspective-poor communication, time and low self-esteem; and three from researchers' perspective-balancing inputs and managing relations, time, and resources and training. Concerning recommendations for best practice, four themes emerged: provision of sufficient time and resources, developing a clear recruitment plan, provision of sufficient training and support, and the need to foster positive working relationships.

conclusionHighlighting the benefits and challenges of PPI in ES/SR projects from different stakeholder perspectives is essential to understand the process and contextual factors and facilitate meaningful PPI in ES/SR projects. Future research should focus on the utilisation of existing frameworks (e.g., Authors and Consumers Together Impacting on eVidencE [ACTIVE] framework) by researchers to help describe and/or report the best approaches and methods for involving patients/public in ES/SRs projects. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This review received great contributions from a recognised PPI partner, the Chair of the Cochrane Consumer Network Executive, to inform the final stage of the review (i.e., interpretation, publication and dissemination of findings). The PPI partner has been included as an author of this review.

Indexed as

Health Services ResearchPatient ParticipationQualitative ResearchHumansbenefitsbest practicechallengesevidence synthesispatient and public involvementsystematic reviewthematic synthesis

Identifiers

PMID37260191
PMCPMC10349234

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.