Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38730485›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2024

Reflecting on activities which support public involvement within an evaluation of public involvement reports from facilities funded by the national institute for health and care research: a co-produced commentary.

Alice Moult, Ali Aries, Paul Bailey, Zoe Paskins

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Alice MoultImpact Accelerator Unit, Keele University, Newcastle-under-Lyme, ST5 5BG, 0000-0002, 9424-5660, UK. a.moult@keele.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9424-5660
Ali AriesSchool of Allied Health, Keele University, Newcastle-under-Lyme, ST5 5BG, UK.
Paul BaileySchool of Allied Health, Keele University, Newcastle-under-Lyme, ST5 5BG, UK.
Zoe PaskinsSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Newcastle-under-Lyme, ST5 5BG, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7783-2986

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although including public contributors as members of research teams is becoming common, there are few reflections on how they have been incorporated, and almost none of these reflections are co-produced with public contributors. This commentary, written by both academics and a public contributor, reflects on Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) activities when undertaking a framework analysis of PPI sections of annual reports from the National Institute for Health and care Research (NIHR) funded research centres. The UK Standards for Public Involvement (inclusive opportunities, working together, support and learning, communications, impact and governance) were used to structure our reflections. Key topics of reflection were: how difficult it is, in practice, to incorporate PPI into all aspects of the research cycle, especially when completing a commissioned research project on a short time-frame, and the complexities of incorporating PPI into qualitative analysis. Although useful when reflecting upon our own PPI practices, ways in which the UK Standards for Public Involvement could be improved were suggested. We hope that the co-produced recommendations can be used by other teams engaging with public contributors.

Indexed as

CommentaryCo-productionPatient and public involvement and engagementReview

Identifiers

PMID38730485
PMCPMC11083799

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.