ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Public engagement with science: an inclusive approach to innovate in health research with real-world data.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Structured patient and public involvement programme development in low- and middle-income country health research: a scoping review of evidence gaps and a framework for future practice.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Review
- Evaluation Tools for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Health Research: A Scoping Review.The patient · 2026Article
- Inclusive methodological awareness for equity and diversity in biomedical research.BMC medical research methodology · 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
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPublic engagement with science (PES) initiatives in health research that use big data to analyze social inequalities in health requires strategies and methods adapted to the contexts of countries in the Global South. This paper aims to examine how, in Brazil - a country with a strong tradition of social participation in research and public policymaking-two research projects from a center that utilizes administrative and real-world data incorporate inclusion and diversity as key elements to connect knowledge production with real-world challenges.
methodsThe study analyzes how two Cidacs research projects - one related to Primary Health Care (PHC) and the other to Data Interoperability-involved members of the public throughout their implementation. Both projects jointly engaged 18 participants, including community representatives, health professionals, and public sector managers. A case report approach is being employed in this paper to systematically document PES experiences based on a predefined script, covering context, methodology, activities, audiences, and ethical aspects. Data were collected through participant observation and listening during engagement activities, which facilitated dialogue between participants and researchers, as well as through follow-up questionnaires and subsequent discussions. This paper itself emerged from this collaborative process, including with some PES participants as co-authors.
resultsThe participants' collaboration impacted the researchers' decisions, providing a closer understanding of the challenges faced by the participants in their daily work in relation to each of the research themes. Furthermore, these discussions resulted in the establishment of partnerships for new initiatives. The participants highlighted that, in addition to the opportunity to contribute to the development of scientific research, they acquired new knowledge from their contact with the research teams.
conclusionsThe diversity of social groups and the inclusion of different perspectives in research projects mobilized by PES have the potential to promote innovations in research processes and results, as well as have social impact. The potential for applicability of scientific information is expanded since it is more connected to the real world, and the participants themselves drive the dissemination process.
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.