Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39424399›Full record

ArticleGesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany))2025

[A qualitative interview study to streamline integration of patient participation in research].

Anna-Francesca Jessica Di Meo, Feyza Gökce, Lisa Pfeiffer, Clara Teusen, Jan Gehrmann, Caroline Jung-Sievers, Antonius Schneider, Jochen Gensichen, Karolina De Valerio, Gabriele Pitschel-Walz

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Article in Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)), 2025. 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. [Patient participation in health research in Germany : Current status and future prospects].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026
    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.

Anna-Francesca Jessica Di MeoLehrstuhl für Public Health und Versorgungsforschung, Institut für medizinische Informationsverarbeitung, Biometrie und Epidemiologie, Medizinische Fakultät, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Germany.
Feyza GökceInstitut für Allgemeinmedizin und Versorgungsforschung, Technische Universität München, München, Germany.
Lisa PfeifferKlinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, LMU Klinikum, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Germany.
Clara TeusenInstitut für Allgemeinmedizin und Versorgungsforschung, Technische Universität München, München, Germany.
Jan GehrmannInstitut für Allgemeinmedizin und Versorgungsforschung, Technische Universität München, München, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5203-016X
Caroline Jung-SieversLehrstuhl für Public Health und Versorgungsforschung, Institut für medizinische Informationsverarbeitung, Biometrie und Epidemiologie, Medizinische Fakultät, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Germany.
Antonius SchneiderInstitut für Allgemeinmedizin und Versorgungsforschung, Technische Universität München, München, Germany.
Jochen GensichenInstitut für Allgemeinmedizin, LMU Klinikum, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Germany.
Karolina De ValerioMünchner Bündnis gegen Depression e.V., München, Germany.
Gabriele Pitschel-WalzInstitut für Allgemeinmedizin, LMU Klinikum, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Integration of the patient perspective in research projects is essential to strengthen the relevance and quality of research results. In order to rectify the lack of structured procedures for patient integration in German research projects, this study summarises the currently available knowledge in a simplified practice-oriented checklist for researchers.Through 13 semi-structured qualitative interviews conducted with members of a research group in December 2022, this study explored patient participation possibilities and barriers. The inductive-deductive coding and analysis in the software MAXQDA led to a standardized checklist development for seamless patient integration across similar contexts and research fields.Of 13 experts, nine researchers (69%) incorporated patient insights into their work, covering topics, concepts, focus prioritization, and study materials. Four researchers (31%) faced barriers due to the absence of guidelines. More than 90% recognized potential for patient integration in topic prioritization, concept formation, evaluation, result review, and interpretation. Researchers highlighted barriers such as patient's limited scientific basis, restricted access, and knowledge gaps in patient interaction. Among the respondents, 56% pointed to training needs and 44% to structural barriers such as workload, unclear funding, guidelines and stakeholder involvement. The resulting checklist includes six sub-categories, each with an average of four sub-items, which operationalise the integration process.Current research lacks effective patient inclusion processes due to inadequate access, tools, and knowledge. While immediate training can address some challenges, longer-term changes in policy and funding are necessary. With the new checklist, researchers receive a support tool to integrate the patient perspective in their projects in a systematic manner.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchPatient ParticipationChecklistGermanyHumansInterviews as TopicQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID39424399
PMCPMC12043378

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.