ReviewBMJ open2023
Characterising meaningful patient and public involvement in the pharmaceutical industry research setting: a retrospective quality assessment.
Review in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using Patient and Public Involvement to Develop a Survey for Economic Evaluation in Dementia Research.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Article
- A conceptual matrix model of patient involvement and patient expertise in medicines and medical technology research and development.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Developing Public-Friendly Visualisations to Improve PPIE Glossaries for Statistical Methodology Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Barriers and solutions for healthcare professionals to involve patients as partners in oncology research: Project RISE.Future oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Advancing Equity and Patient Partnership in Clinical Trials for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Model for Inclusive Trial Design.Clinical and experimental gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Experiences, impact, and enablers of involving young people and family caregivers in developing reporting guidelines for paediatric randomised trials: a case study.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- PPI-POWER-Planning our work with equity and respect: A case study of PPI working.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Article
- Embedding patient engagement in the R&D process of a life sciences company through co-creation with a patient expert R&D board: a case study.Research involvement and engagement · 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
14 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPatient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical research has a well-established infrastructure in the UK, and while there has been good progress within pharmaceutical-industry-sponsored research, further improvements are still needed. This review aims to share learnings from quality assessments of historical PPI projects within Pfizer UK to inform future projects and drive PPI progress in the pharmaceutical industry. DESIGN AND
settingInternal assessments of Pfizer UK PPI projects were conducted to identify all relevant projects across the medicines development continuum between 2017 and 2021. Five sample projects were developed into case studies. OUTCOME MEASURE: Retrospective quality assessments were performed using the Patient Focused Medicines Development (PFMD) Patient Engagement Quality Guidance (PEQG) tool. Recommendations for improvement were developed.
resultsRetrospective case study analysis and quality framework assessment revealed benefits of PPI to both Pfizer UK and to external partners, as well as challenges and learnings to improve future practice. Recommendations for improvement based on these findings focused on processes and procedures for PPI, group dynamics and diversity for PPI activities, sharing of expertise, the importance of bidirectional and timely feedback, and the use of understandable language in materials.
conclusionsPPI in medicines development is impactful and beneficial but is still being optimised in the pharmaceutical industry. Using the PFMD PEQG tool to define gaps, share learnings and devise recommendations for improvement helps to ensure that PPI is genuine and empowering, rather than tokenistic. Ultimately, these recommendations should be acted on to further embed PPI as an integral part of medicines development and health research within the pharmaceutical industry. This article includes a plain language summary in the supplement.
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.