Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39380075›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2024

Patient and public involvement in an evidence synthesis project: description of and reflection on involvement.

Katie Thomson, Alex Todhunter-Brown, Marian C Brady, Pauline Campbell, Liam Dorris, Susan M Hunter, Donald J Nicolson, Christine Hazelton

Abstract read
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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Evaluating Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement Activity Within the 3DPiPPIn Trial: A Qualitative Exploration of Contributors' Perspectives on Their Impact.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

8 authors.

Katie ThomsonDepartment of Occupational Therapy, Human Nutrition & Dietetics, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK. Katie.thomson@gcu.ac.uk.
Alex Todhunter-BrownDepartment of Nursing & Community Health, School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Marian C BradyDepartment of Nursing & Community Health, School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Pauline CampbellDepartment of Nursing & Community Health, School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Liam DorrisPaediatric Neurosciences, Royal Hospital for Children, NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, Glasgow, UK.
Susan M HunterSchool of Allied Health Professions, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Donald J NicolsonStakeholder representative, Edinburgh, UK.
Christine HazeltonDepartment of Vision Sciences, School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR128829
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe conducted an NIHR-funded evidence synthesis project, reviewing evidence relating to interventions for perceptual disorders following stroke. This related paper describes how people with lived experience of stroke-related perceptual disorders contributed to and influenced the project, and identifies lessons for future review projects.

methodsWe planned our patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) activities within a study protocol, described according to the domains of the ACTIVE framework; these were founded on principles for good practice in PPIE. Activities occurred across the lifespan of the project, consisting primarily of group discussions and voting to determine if there was consensus. To assess impact and individual experiences, we sought feedback using an evaluation form after each discussion, and conducted an online meeting at the end of the project to allow further reflection.

resultsWe recruited five people to a Lived Experience Group, including two stroke survivors and three carers. Members attended one face-to-face meeting during the development of the review. Subsequent activities were all held online due to the COVID-19 pandemic; with six online meetings, plus email interactions. Positive impacts of the Lived Experience Group on the reviews included clear definitions of key terms, selection of outcome measures, agreement on implications of review findings, and identification of research recommendations. Key challenges identified related to the complexity of the topic and challenges in the use of new online technology as a consequence of the COVID-pandemic.

conclusionsA number of lessons were learned during this project. Specific recommendations for future PPIE are to ensure that those involved have an opportunity to get to know one another, and to provide optional sessions to increase familiarity with online meeting software, clear explanations of the purpose of involvement and specific feedback after each activity. These lessons should be considered when planning the PPIE within future reviews.

Indexed as

ChallengesConsumerEvidence synthesisImpactInvolvementPerceptionPPIStroke

Identifiers

PMID39380075
PMCPMC11462723

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.