Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39150751›Full record

ArticleJournal of participatory medicine2024

Public Involvement and Engagement in Big Data Research: Scoping Review.

Piotr Teodorowski, Elisa Jones, Naheed Tahir, Saiqa Ahmed, Sarah E Rodgers, Lucy Frith

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of participatory medicine, 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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Beyond the dataset: integrating public voices in data science.Research involvement and engagement · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Piotr TeodorowskiFaculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2172-8298
Elisa JonesDepartment of Public Health, Policy & Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1188-5684
Naheed TahirNational Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration North West Coast, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7112-7816
Saiqa AhmedNational Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration North West Coast, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-6049-2473
Sarah E RodgersDepartment of Public Health, Policy & Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4483-0845
Lucy FrithCentre for Social Ethics and Policy, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8506-0699

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe success of big data initiatives depends on public support. Public involvement and engagement could be a way of establishing public support for big data research.

objectiveThis review aims to synthesize the evidence on public involvement and engagement in big data research.

methodsThis scoping review mapped the current evidence on public involvement and engagement activities in big data research. We searched 5 electronic databases, followed by additional manual searches of Google Scholar and gray literature. In total, 2 public contributors were involved at all stages of the review.

resultsA total of 53 papers were included in the scoping review. The review showed the ways in which the public could be involved and engaged in big data research. The papers discussed a broad range of involvement activities, who could be involved or engaged, and the importance of the context in which public involvement and engagement occur. The findings show how public involvement, engagement, and consultation could be delivered in big data research. Furthermore, the review provides examples of potential outcomes that were produced by involving and engaging the public in big data research.

conclusionsThis review provides an overview of the current evidence on public involvement and engagement in big data research. While the evidence is mostly derived from discussion papers, it is still valuable in illustrating how public involvement and engagement in big data research can be implemented and what outcomes they may yield. Further research and evaluation of public involvement and engagement in big data research are needed to better understand how to effectively involve and engage the public in big data research. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050167.

Indexed as

big dataco-designcoproductiondata scienceengagementinvolvementpatient and public involvementpatient engagementPPI

Identifiers

PMID39150751
PMCPMC11364952

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.