Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38102672›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2023

£25 and a biscuit: Women's Health Research and Public Engagement in the UK.

Alison Gabrielle Perry, Edward Mullins

Open access · goldAbstract readLetter
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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Engagement in women's health: a history.Research involvement and engagement · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alison Gabrielle PerryImperial College London, London, UK. a.perry@imperial.ac.uk.
Edward MullinsImperial College London, London, UK.
The George Institute for Global Health · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is over a  year since the Department of Health launched the Women's Health Strategy for England and included the rally cry of "women's voices". However, methods and modes of the inclusion of women in their own health and health research still fall short. Patient and public engagement and involvement (PPIE) in women's health research is considered a hallmark of a moral, ethical, and democratic society. Despite the call for the inclusion of "women's voices" and "women's stories", approaches to PPIE often remain tokenistic and don't address issues of representation, equality, and diversity or respond to wider racial inequalities in health. This past August marked the 103rd birthday of the late Henrietta Lacks who died of cervical cancer. Clones of her cells (HeLa cells) obtained without consent, continue to be used in laboratories around the world and serves as an ongoing reminder of dynamics and power in health research relationships with the public today. Historically, women have been mistreated and excluded from research and the reality that Black women in the UK remain 3.7 times more likely to die in childbirth makes the effectiveness of our research pathways critical (MBRRACE-UK, https://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/mbrrace-uk ). PPIE holds much potential to contribute to the improvement of shortcomings in maternity and women's health, but not without deeper understanding of the ways in which engagement intrinsically, works. This article raises criticism of the current quality of engagement in women's health research and calls for a redesign of our frameworks and the need to explore new configurations of the relationship between women's health, research, and people.

Identifiers

PMID38102672
PMCPMC10724914
OpenAlexW4389784751

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.