ArticleBMC psychiatry2025
Patient and public involvement in basic and clinical psychiatric research: a scoping review of reviews.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Model Systems infrastructure of the German Center for Mental Health (DZPG): toward an integrated, mechanism-based framework for mental health research.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2026Review
- Beyond the Meeting: Patient and Public Involvement Practices and Barriers to Inclusive Participation in Stroke Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Management of choking in Motor Neuron Disease: patient and public involvement in a co-produced mixed-methods study protocol.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Review
- Equitable partnership: patient and public involvement and engagement and community engagement in mental health research in Pakistan.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Lessons learned from including Patient and Public Involvement members throughout research projects in Tic Disorder research.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- How Lived Experience Advisory Groups Contribute to the Design and Conduct of Mental Health Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Ethical challenges researchers encounter during the informed consent processes for research involving people with schizophrenia and bipolar affective disorder: a qualitative assessment.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Engaging adults with severe mental illness in research: considerations and practical recommendations for meaningful patient and public involvement.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Involvement of persons with lived experience in mental health research: recommendations.Neuroscience applied · 2026Article
- Content, implementation, and evaluation of capacity-strengthening initiatives for public and patient involvement in mental health research: a scoping review protocol informed by implementation science.HRB open research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) in health research has become established as an essential component of international health research. Particularly, patients and stakeholders' commitment to psychiatric research faces various challenges. This scoping review aimed to examine the existing literature to identify the aims, methods, barriers, and facilitators of PPI in clinical and basic psychiatric research.
methodsThis scoping review's methods were guided by the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley. The literature search was conducted between October and November 2023 on six databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, PsycInfo, PubPsych, and the Cochrane Library). We included reviews that summarized the results of primary studies describing methods for PPI in psychiatric scientific research, regardless of their subjects' underlying psychiatric conditions and the primary research context (clinical or preclinical). The inclusion criteria included a description of the methods, components, and characteristics of participation in psychiatric research. We included reviews published between 2008 and 2023 regardless of participants' language, country, or age.
findingsTwenty reviews comprising 429 studies were included. They revealed that PPI was used to pursue various objectives (e.g., prioritizing research questions). Common methods included focus groups, advisory boards, workshops and interviews. Only one review reported financial compensation for those involved. PPI ranged from tokenism to involvement in data analysis and the dissemination of findings. Facilitators and barriers were identified in relationship and communication factors, organizational and practical factors, and in (co-) researchers training. The most frequently mentioned facilitators of successful PPI were trust and strong relationships. The most frequently mentioned barrier was the power imbalance between the participants and researchers. We identified positive and potential negative effects of PPI.
conclusionGolden rules for practice (clinical and basic research) derived from the results are as follows: (I) Foster a culture of collaboration and mutual respect between researchers and PPI participants. (II) Provide adequate resources and support for PPI activities, including funding and training programs. (III) Develop clear guidelines and standards for PPI to ensure consistency and quality. (IV) Develop a willingness to integrate PPI into all phases of research, from planning to the dissemination of results. SCOPING REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/7YS5C .
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.