Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40135803›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2025

The Importance of Lived Experience: A Scoping Review on the Value of Patient and Public Involvement in Health Research.

Heather Mah, Ruth Dobson, Alison Thomson

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Bridging Lived and Expert Experience: A Qualitative Study Exploring Lived-Experience Experts' and Researchers' Experiences of Public Engagement in Cancer Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. BMJ mental health · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. No Ethics Needed? Towards an Ethics of Care for Public and Patient Involvement and Engagement.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Review
  14. Training Adolescents and Young Adults to be Partners in Research: Co-Creating the Young Patients' Autoimmune Research and Empowerment Alliance.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Consumer Engagement in Chronic Conditions Research: An Integrated Framework Informed by Recognition Theory.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

Heather MahCentre for Preventive Neurology, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3863-3909
Ruth DobsonCentre for Preventive Neurology, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Alison ThomsonCentre for Preventive Neurology, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.

Funding

Heather Mah's PhD studentship is funded by the Horne Family Charitable Foundation. Ruth Dobson has received honoraria for speaking and/or travelling from Biogen, Esai, Merck, Roche, Teva, Janssen and Sanofi. She served on the advisory board of Roche, Biogen, Janssen and Merck. She has received grant support from Biogen, Merck, Celgene, Barts Charity, the UK MS Society, NMSS, MRC and the Horne Family Charitable Foundation. Alison Thomson received research support from The UK MS Society, Roche and honoraria from Novartis and Merck. Alison Thomson has received research grant support from the UK MS Society, Roche, Merck, Barts Charity, NIHR, ADR UK and honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Merck and NeuraxPharm.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecently, patient and public involvement (PPI) in research has gained significant attention, particularly within the United Kingdom. Although there has been a growing focus on the impact of PPI on research outcomes, there remains an important gap in understanding its effects on the individuals involved and the value they gain from their participation.

objectiveThis scoping review aims to critically examine how PPI benefits both people with lived experience and researchers, shedding light on the value of their involvement in shaping research.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Cochrane and Web of Science for full-text articles published in English after 1996. Grey literature searches reviewed policies from international research funders and patient organisations. Two reviewers independently carried out the abstract, title and full-text article screening stages. Data abstraction was performed by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Thematic analysis synthesised the findings.

resultsAfter searching 3024 citations, 107 published articles and nine unpublished resources were included in the review. Most of the studies were conducted in the United Kingdom in the last 10 years. Thematic analysis of the value of PPI revealed four main themes: (1) value from contributing to research, (2) importance of relationships, (3) attitudes and support for PPI and (4) emotional labour of involvement. DISCUSSION: This scoping review reveals the significant contributions alongside systemic challenges of PPI in health research. Being valued was framed as an impact of PPI to both PPI advisors and researchers. It emphasises the importance of social capital in developing relationships between researchers and people with lived experience yet highlights barriers that can hinder effective collaboration. This can lead to experiential knowledge being undervalued as a crucial perspective to inform research. Despite people being chosen to take part on account of their knowledge, skills and lived experience, these resources were not always used to their full potential due to researchers' expectations and restrictive research and institutional processes. The review calls for coordinated efforts to improve how PPI is valued and practised beyond a process or method to ensure PPI is done thoughtfully and effectively.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationPatient ParticipationHumansUnited Kingdombenefithealth researchpatient and public involvementscoping reviewsocial capitalvalue

Identifiers

PMID40135803
PMCPMC11938292

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.