ArticleBMJ open2025
Co-creating tools for embedding meaningful patient and public involvement and engagement in real-world data and evidence research in the pharmaceutical industry setting: a multistakeholder participatory co-design study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Defining Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement Tasks in Health Data Research: A Consensus Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to (1) gauge patients understanding and expectations of real-world data and evidence (RWDE) research and (2) use this understanding and patients lived experience to co-create resources and a framework for embedding meaningful patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in RWDE research within the pharmaceutical industry setting. SETTING AND
participantsAn academic organisation, a pharmaceutical company and a PPIE panel of 12 patients or carers partnered to form the project team. The PPIE panel was purposively selected to maximise diversity.
designParticipatory and co-design methods were used to engender an understanding of the PPIE perspective on RWDE research and the PPIE role within that. Interactive workshops explored understanding and expectations of RWDE research as well as perceived barriers and facilitators of PPIE within each stage of the RWDE research cycle. Workshops were audio and video recorded, with notes captured. Summaries were analysed thematically and shared back with the PPIE panel for validation and further reflection.
resultsWe identified a lack of trust and understanding of real-world data, its collection and use and the need to educate the public and researchers. Four themes were identified for meaningful PPIE in RWDE research; equality, diversity and inclusion; feeling valued; ownership and understanding and evaluating impact. We co-created learning resources (video, infographic) and a novel PPIE framework, incorporating potential PPIE activities, resources and support needs for use by researchers conducting RWDE research.
conclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first project to explore the practicalities of PPIE in RWDE research from the perspective of patients and carers. Some findings confirm PPIE experience and guidance derived from other areas, with some specific insights into the pharmaceutical industry. These underpin the PPIE framework to enable robust and meaningful PPIE in RWDE research. This article includes a plain language summary in the supplement.
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.