ReviewPEC innovation2024
Public involvement and public engagement: An example of convergent evolution? Findings from a conceptual qualitative review of patient and public involvement, and public engagement, in health and scientific research.
Review in PEC innovation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient and public involvement in health and social care doctoral research: recommendations co-produced by doctoral researchers, public contributors, and a public involvement coordinator.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- When xenotransplantation enters the conversation: reflections on public involvement in research on a novel and controversial technology.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Involving community members in designing behavioural weight management programmes: a scoping review.BMC public health · 2026Article
- From engagement to dissemination: a WiseAge patient and public involvement and engagement event on dementia with Lewy bodies.Frontiers in dementia · 2026Article
- What approaches are used to facilitate people from under-served communities getting involved with health research? A public contributor led review.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
- Digital Information Exchange Between the Public and Researchers in Health Studies: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Development of a menopause-specific questionnaire: Content and face validation using a modified Delphi technique.Women's health (London, England)Article
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
Objective: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research is now well-established, whilst science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) research has shifted from a focus on science communication alone to public engagement (PE) within its research processes. Despite frequently drawing on similar theoretical influences, and practical motivations, there is often a lack of dialogue between such settings meaning shared learning, practice and evidence from these two sectors are rarely pooled. Methods: In this article, we examine findings from a conceptual review of literature gathered between 1996 and 2019. Results: Analyzing 142 peer-reviewed articles, we ascertain shared definitions and concepts in patient and public involvement and public engagement, identifying key differences and similarities. Conclusion: The literature we review supports the notion that, in terms of origins, there are two distinct traditions, one based in science communication and one based in what we describe as public involvement in shared decision-making. Innovation: We find evidence that the two traditions are converging but our work also calls for the need for further conversations between these two settings, which are exploring intersecting issues but from parallel pathways.
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.