ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2025
A commentary on ophthalmic patients co-designing a new tool to better understand their hospital letters.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- How well do we write for patients? Longitudinal analysis of the readability and complexity of 4.6 million ophthalmic clinical letters.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Article
- Advancing Question-Answering in Ophthalmology With Retrieval-Augmented Generation: Benchmarking Open-Source and Proprietary Large Language Models.Translational vision science & technology · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) is recognised by the National Institute for Health and Care Research in the UK as crucial for high-quality outcomes with numerous benefits for patients. Patient and public contributors can provide both personal knowledge and lived experiences which complement the perspectives of the team. In this commentary, we share our experiences of facilitating a project, Explain.Health, to co-design a digital platform to help patients better understand their hospital letters by explaining medical terms. We describe the stages in the formation of the PPIE group, the stages in the co-design process and the next steps for the project. We reflect on PPIE of the project, including lessons learned for future PPIE work in building new digital platforms. Important considerations for this PPIE work include: (1) ensuring each public contributor feels listened to and understands how their involvement contributes to the design of the platform, (2) providing regular and clear communication and (3) offering adequate support to public contributors (appropriate formatting of resources for visually impaired contributors, incentives, assistance to use the meeting platform) to establish an inclusive and considerate approach. These findings can inform future PPIE plans for stakeholders involved in similar projects.
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.