ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2025
PPI-POWER-Planning our work with equity and respect: A case study of PPI working.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient and Public Involvement (PPI) is increasingly advocated for undertaking research that is useful and relevant to those impacted by it. Funding bodies now include PPI as a mandatory part of funding programmes. Although researchers may be open to PPI research, the practicalities of this approach can be unclear. Therefore, we describe how we worked together to identify research priorities on a project called PPI-POWER (Patient and Public Involvement-Planning Our Work with Equity and Respect).
methodsOur team comprises a person with intellectual disability, two parents of people with intellectual disability, a research officer and a researcher. We used a diary study approach to document the strategies we used to ensure everyone was heard and involved, building our partnership, successes, challenges, practicalities. We met approximately every six weeks. At the end of each meeting we talked about how we found preparing for and being part of that meeting.
resultsWe use the PPI Ignite Network Values and Principles (2022) as a framework to present our experiences. Clear, open communication, transparency around expectations as well as flexibility, respect and understanding regarding responsibilities beyond the research were important issues that were necessary for successful working.
conclusionsCareful, considerate teamworking supports the development of PPI partnerships that will be invaluable and impactful. Although our work relates to people with intellectual disability and their carers, the strategies we used can apply across different groups. Further, we make a number of recommendations that support respectful, collaborative working for those planning PPI research.
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.