ReviewBMJ open2025
Lessons learnt from developing an ethnically diverse patient and public involvement group for breast cancer research.
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.
- "It gives me confidence and value": evaluating All_Ears@UoS patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group three years on.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- What added value does Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in oncology research bring to cancer patients and what are the challenges in realizing it? A mixed-methods cross-sectional study in four PPI groups in Flanders (Belgium).Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- A novel framework for operationalising patient and public involvement: lessons from designing an AI-informed exercise prescription grant.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Patient and public involvement in secure mental health research: setting-specific considerations and a protocol for involvement in the CORAS study (COllaborative Risk ASsessment and management).Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
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
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
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.