ReviewBMC medical research methodology2025
Patient partner engagement in the publication process: challenges and possible solutions.
Review in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Questions for more insightful and useful analyses of barriers and facilitators to public involvement and engagement in health research: a critical narrative review.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Review
- Strengthening Value Assessment and Health Economics and Outcomes Research Proposals Through Patient Engagement: Guidelines for Researchers.The patient · 2026Review
- Beyond Tokenism: Making Lived Experience Leadership Visible in Co-Produced Research Authorship.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- A rapid evaluation of the reporting and publishing practices of patient and public involvement and engagement in health research within a UK university institute.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Review
- Nothing About Us Without Us: On Publishing the Patient Voice.Medical care · 2026Article
- Giving credit where credit's due - recognition of patient partners in health research.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Patient- and Public-Led Research - How Is It Defined and Practiced: A Scoping Review.Journal of patient experience · 2026Article
- Gaps in the Engagement of People With Lived and Living Experience and Caregivers in Mental Health and Substance Use Health Research: A Qualitative Study of Untapped Potential.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patient engagement in research is gaining traction as an international standard, and often requirement, of many health research funding agencies. Drivers of this increase include patient interest, increased attention to and recognition of the value of patients' voices in research, and more patients leading or partnering in the conduct research. Patient engagement includes collaborating and providing insights into research question and study design, and may extend to the publication process. When patients contribute to publications, they can bring unique perspectives that may enhance the impact, reach, and utility of the research in real-world contexts. Currently, there is limited systematic guidance to support patient partners as they navigate this complex publication process. As a result, it can be difficult for patient partners to understand when and how they should be included as authors, how to collaborate in the writing process, and how to complete mandatory tasks during the submission process. In this paper, we review barriers and facilitators within existing publication practices and offer recommendations to ensure that the scientific publication process is more transparent and accessible for patient partners.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.