Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39102693›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2024

Patient and public involvement in preclinical and medical research: Evaluation of an established programme in a Discovery-Based Medical Research Institute.

Robyn A Smith, Judith Slocombe, Jo Cockwill, Kathy Minas, George Kiossoglou, Katya Gray, William Lawrence, Michelle Iddles, Clare Scott, Lorraine A O'Reilly

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Embedding Consumer-Led Research in a Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The Importance of Lived Experience: A Scoping Review on the Value of Patient and Public Involvement in Health Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  6. Patient and public involvement in preclinical and medical research: Evaluation of an established programme in a Discovery-Based Medical Research Institute.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    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

10 authors.

Robyn A SmithConsumer and Community Involvement Theme, Melbourne Academic Centre for Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9517-7789
Judith SlocombeClinical Translation Centre, Cancer Biology and Stem Cells Division and Inflammation Division, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Jo CockwillClinical Translation Centre, Cancer Biology and Stem Cells Division and Inflammation Division, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Kathy MinasClinical Translation Centre, Cancer Biology and Stem Cells Division and Inflammation Division, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
George KiossoglouClinical Translation Centre, Cancer Biology and Stem Cells Division and Inflammation Division, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Katya GrayClinical Translation Centre, Cancer Biology and Stem Cells Division and Inflammation Division, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
William LawrenceConsumer and Community Involvement Theme, Melbourne Academic Centre for Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Michelle IddlesConsumer and Community Involvement Theme, Melbourne Academic Centre for Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Clare ScottClinical Translation Centre, Cancer Biology and Stem Cells Division and Inflammation Division, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3689-5956
Lorraine A O'ReillyClinical Translation Centre, Cancer Biology and Stem Cells Division and Inflammation Division, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7134-6496

Funding

Medical Research Future Fund MRF9100004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and contextInvolving people with lived experience of health conditions and the public (consumers) in health research is supported by policy, practice and research funding schemes. However, consumer involvement programmes in discovery-based preclinical research settings are uncommon. Few formal evaluations of these programmes are reported in the literature.

objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate an established patient and public involvement programme operating in a major Australian Discovery-Based Medical Research Institute (DBMRI) to inform programme development and the wider field. DESIGN AND

participantsA multimethods programme evaluation incorporating demographic, descriptive and qualitative data obtained through consumer/researcher co-developed online surveys and semistructured virtual interviews. Programme participants (n = 111) were invited to complete an online survey seeking feedback on their experience of involvement, programme processes and perceived impacts. A purposive sample of 25 participants was interviewed. Descriptive data were analysed using explanatory statistics and qualitative data from surveys and interviews were thematically analysed.

resultsThis consumer involvement programme was found to be useful and meaningful for most participants, with specific examples of perceived added value. Consumers most commonly engaged with researchers to inform research development, prepare funding applications or strengthen lay communication of science. Genuine consumer-researcher interactions, relationship development and mutual respect were key elements in a positive experience for participants. Opportunities to 'give back', to learn and to ground research in lived experience were identified programme strengths and benefits. Developing researcher training in how to work with consumers, increasing the diversity of the consumer group membership and expanding the range of consumer activities were identified opportunities for improvement. Organisational support and adequate programme resourcing were identified as key enablers.

conclusionDiscovery-based preclinical research is often viewed as being distant from clinical application; therefore, consumer involvement may be considered less relevant. However this study identified value in bringing a strong consumer voice to the discovery-based research process through a coordinated, organisation-wide approach with the potential for application in similar preclinical research settings. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Four consumer partners from the DBMRI Consumer Advisory Panel were actively engaged in developing this programme evaluation. Specifically, these consumer partners co-developed and pilot-tested surveys and interview guides, reviewed and commented on project data analysis and reporting and also contributed as co-authors by editing the manuscript.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchCommunity ParticipationPatient ParticipationProgram EvaluationAdultAgedAustraliaFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnairesconsumerevaluationmedical researchpatient and public involvementpatient engagementpreclinical research

Identifiers

PMID39102693
PMCPMC10797251

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.