ReviewResearch involvement and engagement2025
The pedagogical liminality of patient and public involvement in initial healthcare professional education: an umbrella review.
Review in Research involvement and engagement, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- The Gordian Knot That Is Patient and Public Involvement in Interprofessional Education.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Article
- Correction to: The pedagogical liminality of patient and public involvement in initial healthcare professional education: an umbrella review.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPatient and public involvement in undergraduate healthcare professional education (PPI-PE) raises questions about its value and the ways it can be implemented, which has been explored by several literature reviews from various angles. This study aimed to take stock of our current knowledge of the foundations and effects of PPI-PE, the structure of programs of this type, their implementation conditions and identify any gaps in the studies conducted so far. The aim was also to identify the questions that run through the studies, pinpoint their foundations and implicit assumptions, and make sense of any discordant elements.
designThree databases were searched to conduct an umbrella review based on the recommended quality criteria.
resultsThe 27 reviews included were based on 529 independent articles. The analysis carried out has enabled us to consolidate existing knowledge of stakeholders' motivations, patient recruitment process, the implemented educational initiatives and their impact. Numerous studies agree on the benefits of PPI-PE. In contrast, there are few studies on patient profiles, and the lack of grounding in intervention theories does not help to structure curricula.
conclusionThe results explain the lack of chrono-pedagogical reflection. At this stage, it would be useful to develop realistic evaluations of whose aim is to link effects to contextual elements and the mechanisms that produce them, to optimize actions. Despite the well-documented benefits of PPI-PE, its limited integration suggests a form of pedagogical liminality. This may stem from institutional inertia in medical and nursing education, where entrenched traditions, power dynamics, and the dominance of qualitative research create barriers to change.
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.