ReviewBMJ open2025
All the voices we cannot hear: a taxonomy of why some populations' experiences are missing from health and care quality evidence and the Toolkit for Assessing Under Representation in User Surveys (TAURUS).
Review in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and implementation of low-dose oral modified release morphine in people with chronic breathlessness: a synopsis of a RCT and process evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Trial
- Patient Journey Mapping in Mental Disorders: A Scoping Review.International journal of mental health nursing · 2026Article
- Evaluating HEART: Student Engagement and Health System Impact in a Person-Centered Learning Health System Initiative.Learning health systems · 2026Article
- Systematizing and Optimizing Collection of Patient-reported Outcomes after Community-based Care: A Quality Improvement Project.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient and public voices are vital for understanding the quality of health and care. However, many healthcare providers, commissioners, decision-makers and researchers cannot hear the voices of all people within diverse populations, with different groups excluded from patient experience data collections and analyses for a variety of causes-some of which are overlooked or misunderstood. Exclusion and under-representation can be particularly problematic for disadvantaged people and marginalised communities, and risk exacerbating existing inequalities. KEY MESSAGES: We posit a taxonomy of causes of exclusion and under-representation in research involving patient and public voice: (1) Non-access: people are excluded because they cannot or do not access a service in the first place. (2) Non-invitation: health research and feedback programmes may not include invitations for some groups, despite being eligible, or use language that is inappropriate. (3) Non-response: some communities are less likely to respond to requests for feedback. (4) Non-identification: sometimes the structure and content of data do not allow the identification of distinct groups in data collections. (5) Non-review: sometimes data are available and yet not analysed. We provide a
conclusionsThese causes result in under-representation that creates knowledge gaps for quality and equity. Overcoming this requires strategic approaches with a commitment to equity and inclusion, supported by resources in collecting and using data with an appropriate range of methodologies. Providers should undertake equalities impact assessments around new data collections, using the taxonomy to identify and minimise potential sources of under-representation and ensure that voices are heard and acted on.
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.