Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38037160›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2023

Using the UK standards for public involvement to evaluate the public involvement sections of annual reports from NIHR managed research centres.

Alice Moult, Dereth Baker, Ali Aries, Paul Bailey, Steven Blackburn, Tom Kingstone, Saumu Lwembe, Zoe Paskins

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Involving People With Dementia in Research: Contributions, Barriers and Evaluation From a Meta-Synthesis and Qualitative Interview Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Alice MoultImpact Accelerator Unit, Keele University, Newcastle-under-Lyme, ST5 5BG, UK. a.moult@keele.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9424-5660
Dereth BakerSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Newcastle-under-Lyme, ST5 5BG, UK.
Ali AriesSchool of Allied Health, Keele University, Newcastle-under-Lyme, ST5 5BG, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6735-3578
Paul BaileySchool of Allied Health, Keele University, Newcastle-under-Lyme, ST5 5BG, UK.
Steven BlackburnPatient and Public Involvement and Engagement, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Stoke on Trent, B15 2TT, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2629-3126
Tom KingstoneSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Newcastle-under-Lyme, ST5 5BG, UK.
Saumu LwembeNational Institute for Health and Care Research, LGC Ltd, Grange House, 15 Church St, Twickenham, TW1 3NL, UK.
Zoe PaskinsSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Newcastle-under-Lyme, ST5 5BG, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7783-2986
Keele University · GBMidlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWithin the United Kingdom (UK), the National Institute for Health and Care Research is the largest funder of health and social care research, and additionally funds research centres that support the development and delivery of research. Each year, award-holders of these research centres are required to write a report about their activities, including a summary of Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) activities. This study aimed to evaluate the PPIE sections of annual reports to identify best practice and challenges; this could inform future delivery of PPIE activities.

methodsA framework documentary analysis informed by the six UK Standards for Public Involvement ('Inclusive opportunities', 'Working together', 'Support and learning', 'Communications', 'Impact' and 'Governance') was conducted on 112 reports. A quality improvement framework ('Insights') was used to evaluate quality as one of: 'Welcoming', 'Listening', 'Learning' and 'Leading'. Recommendations from this review were co-developed with stakeholders and public contributors.

resultsReports documented varying levels of quality in PPIE activities which spanned across all six UK Standards. Award-holders either intended to, or were actively working towards, increasing access and inclusivity of public involvement opportunities. Methods of working with public contributors were varied, including virtual and in-person meetings. Most award-holders offered PPIE support and learning opportunities for both public contributors and staff. Some award-holders invited public contributors to co-produce communication plans relating to study materials and research findings. The impact of public involvement was described in terms of benefits to public contributors themselves, and on an organisation and project level. Many award-holders reported inviting public contributors to share decision-making within and about governance structures.

conclusionsThis evaluation identified that most annual reports contained evidence of good quality PPIE practice with learning from public contributors. Using the UK Standards and Insights framework enabled exploration of the breadth and quality of PPIE activities. Recommendations include the need for a platform for centres to access and share PPIE best practice and for centres to collaborate with local and national partners to build relationships with the public through inclusive community engagement.

Indexed as

EvaluationPatient and Public Involvement and EngagementQuality framework

Identifiers

PMID38037160
PMCPMC10688454
OpenAlexW4389205391

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.