Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40032390›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2025

Lessons learnt from developing an ethnically diverse patient and public involvement group for breast cancer research.

Toral Gathani, Bep Dhaliwal, Julliet Lwiindi, Shoba Dawson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

4 authors.

Toral GathaniCancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK toral.gathani@ndph.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2837-1535
Bep DhaliwalPatient representative, Oxford, UK.
Julliet LwiindiOxford Cancer Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Shoba DawsonSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThere is evidence that those who typically contribute to patient and public involvement (PPI) activities do not reflect the diversity of the population, and individuals from underserved groups are less likely to participate in healthcare research. For some researchers, understanding how to embed diversity into their PPI work can be confusing and challenging. The aim of this communication article is to reflect on our experiences and share the lessons learnt from developing an ethnically diverse PPI group to co-deliver breast cancer research. KEY POINTS: Researchers must be realistic about timelines at both the grant application stage and during the research project, as finding contributors for inclusive and diverse PPI work takes time. Researchers will benefit from utilisation of existing expertise and resources within existing PPI teams at research institutions. It is vitally important to be clear about what researchers need in terms of contributors and what the PPI activities will be at different stages of the research project.

conclusionsConducting effective, diverse and meaningful PPI is a research skill that needs to be learnt and practised just like any other. Well-developed inclusive PPI has significant benefits for both researchers and the public.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchBreast NeoplasmsCommunity ParticipationCultural DiversityEthnicityPatient ParticipationFemaleHumansBreast tumoursHealth EquityPatient Participation

Identifiers

PMID40032390
PMCPMC11877151

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.