ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2025
Integrating patient and public involvement during the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons from COVID-clinical neuroscience study.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 Clinical Neuroscience Study (COVID-CNS) was a large UK research initiative investigating the clinical features, outcomes and biological mechanisms behind neurological and psychiatric complications from COVID-19. Through partnerships and patient enrolment, the study aimed to inform patient care and treatment selection to improve outcomes.
methodsHere, we evaluate the methodologies and results yielded from patient and public involvement (PPI) efforts within COVID-CNS, an important element of the research cycle which introduces patient perspectives and enhances research relevance.
resultsPPI involvement in the study heralded many accomplishments and contributed to the success of the study, in particular improving accessibility in study design and tools reducing patient burden; inclusivity and accessibility of the study in terms of recruitment; and in the plethora of assets to maximise dissemination of the study findings. Several challenges were identified, including barriers to diversify the PPI panel, difficulties faced by panel members to engage in PPI activities due to personal circumstances, as well as significant obstacles caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Specific outcomes from this evaluation have included: identifying diversity gaps in the PPI panel, a deeper understanding of the impact of the PPI panel, including creating and adapting patient material, dissemination documents and raising awareness of the COVID-CNS study.
conclusionsDespite challenges, this evaluation has demonstrated the critical role of PPI within studies, particularly in this case, for strengthening understanding of how to alleviate the burden for patients of post-COVID-19 sequelae. Sufficient budget must be made available for PPI, and PPI panels must be accessible to a diverse range of people, whilst remaining adaptable to external circumstances.
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.