ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2023
£25 and a biscuit: Women's Health Research and Public Engagement in the UK.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Engagement in women's health: a history.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Patient and public involvement (PPI) reporting in maternal and neonatal clinical trials: an exploratory review.Trials · 2026Review
- What do we actually know about the biomechanics of pregnancy and labour? A systematic scoping review.PloS one · 2025Article
- Co-production in the Lost Mothers Project: transforming criminal justice narratives through Lived experience engagement.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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.