ArticleBMJ open2023
Recruitment of patients, carers and members of the public to advisory boards, groups and panels in public and patient involved health research: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility of the "LvL UP" trial: a pilot sequential multiple assignment randomised trial of an adaptive, holistic mHealth lifestyle coaching intervention.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2026Trial
- Questions for more insightful and useful analyses of barriers and facilitators to public involvement and engagement in health research: a critical narrative review.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Review
- Using Partner-Driven Maximum Variance Sampling to Form a Lived Experience Panel: Step-by-Step Tutorial.Journal of participatory medicine · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Empowering AI assisted clinical drug development: tactics to address data bias, the digital divide and missing patient populations through AI and digital solutions.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Health apps: a cross-sectional study exploring patient motivations and usage implications.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Emerging practice in mental health patient and public involvement research advisory groups: a narrative review.BMC psychiatry · 2025Review
- Consumer and community involvement in paediatric intensive care research across Australia and New Zealand: a protocol for a mixed-methods environmental scan.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
- How are patient partners involved in health service research? A scoping review of reviews.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
- Operationalising Patient Engagement Through the Alberta Cancer Diagnosis Initiative: Recruitment Strategies for Diverse Populations in Health System Improvement.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Article
- Barriers and Facilitators to the Recruitment and Engagement of Diverse Populations Into Patient and Family Advisory Councils: A Scoping Review.Journal of patient experience · 2025Article
- Building a diverse national research advisory board.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- An auto-ethnographic study of co-produced health research in a patient organisation: unpacking the good, the bad, and the unspoken.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Evaluating a grant development public involvement funding scheme: a qualitative document analysis.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Development and evaluation of a stroke research Public Patient Involvement Panel.HRB open research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objectives of this scoping review are to: (1) identify the distribution of and context of the recruitment strategies used, (2) explore the facilitators, benefits, barriers and ethical issues of the identified recruitment strategies, (3) distinguish the varying terminology for involvement (ie, panels, boards, individual) and (4) determine if the individual recruitment strategies used were to address issues of representation or bias.
designA scoping review.
settingThis scoping review follows the framework by Peters PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Explore recruitment strategies used, facilitators, benefits, barriers and ethical issues of the identified recruitment strategies. Identify terminology for involvement. Explore recruitment strategies used to address issues of representation or bias.
resultsThe final sample was from 51 sources. A large portion of the extracted empirical literature had a clinical focus (37%, n=13) but was not a randomised control trial. The most common recruitment strategies used were human networks (78%, n=40), such as word of mouth, foundation affiliation, existing networks, clinics or personal contacts. Within the reviewed literature, there was a lack of discussion pertaining to facilitators, benefits, barriers and ethical considerations of recruitment strategies was apparent. Finally, 41% (n=21) of studies employed or proposed recruitment strategies or considerations to address issues of representation or bias.
conclusionWe conclude with four key recommendations that researchers can use to better understand appropriate routes to meaningfully involve patients, carers and members of the public to cocreate the evidence informing their care.
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.