ArticleZFA. Zeitschrift fur Allgemeinmedizin2022
[Patient and Public Involvement in Family Medicine Research].
Article in ZFA. Zeitschrift fur Allgemeinmedizin, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Experiences of general practice teams and their patients with clinical research-a mixed-methods process evaluation of the Bavarian Research Practice Network (BayFoNet).BMC primary care · 2025Trial
- [DNVF Memorandum Participatory Health Services Research (Part 1)].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2026Article
- [Participation and co-creation in implementation research].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2025Review
- [A qualitative interview study to streamline integration of patient participation in research].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2025Article
- Is this really Empowerment? Enhancing our understanding of empowerment in patient and public involvement within clinical research.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Establishing a standing patient advisory board in family practice research: A qualitative evaluation from patients' and researchers' perspectives.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) has gained importance in Germany and is also increasingly implemented in research in family medicine. Internationally, diverse frameworks give recommendations on how to successfully design and implement PPI in specific contexts. However, it is crucial to share experiences on PPI in specific settings such as family medicine in order to learn from each other. Thus, this article provides an overview of PPI concepts in the practice-based research networks (PBRNs) of the Initiative of German Practice-Based Research Networks - DESAM-ForNet. In the PBRNs patients and the public are involved in the research process by repeated group meetings in "public forums" (BayFoNet), "round tables" (FoPraNet-BW) or "patient advisory boards" (HAFO.NRW, RESPoNsE, SaxoForN) with a special focus on the planning and dissemination phase of projects. The most successful recruitment strategies so far have encompassed individual patient contacts of family physicians, postings/posters, local self-help organizations and standardized patient programs. Evaluation of PPI is currently being designed in most PBRNS. Overall, the PBRN-specific PPI concepts represent diverse possibilities to create long-term collaborative partnerships with patients and the public. These exemplary concepts are meant to encourage the further development and implementation of adapted PPI-concepts in family medicine research.
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.