ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2025
Public Involvement in a Systematic Review Project: Reporting Our Approach Using the ACTIVE Framework.
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 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of interventions to increase vaccine uptake: component network meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2026Pooled it
- Cancer survival and its social determinants among children with a migrant background: systematic review protocol.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Recipient-focused interventions to increase vaccine uptake in high and upper-middle income countries: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPublic involvement in research improves its relevance and accessibility to ensure it reflects the population it serves. However, there is a lack of information about how patients and the public are involved in shaping systematic reviews. There is also a need to address the lack of diversity in public involvement, particularly around the inclusion of underserved communities. This paper outlines the practical approaches taken to involve a diverse group of public contributors in a systematic review process and offers recommendations to support future practices.
methodsThis paper uses the ACTIVE framework developed by Pollock et al. (2019) to structure our reflections on public involvement in an NIHR-funded systematic review project on the effectiveness of interventions used to increase vaccination uptake.
resultsWe present the practical approaches used to recruit and engage a diverse group of public contributors in a systematic review project. They had continuous, hands-on involvement in various aspects of the systematic review process. Our approach enabled the public involvement group to play an integral role in adapting and refining a coding framework, contributing to the development and refining of codes and categories used for the analysis. DISCUSSION: Our paper highlights the importance of involving public contributors who have a range of experiences and backgrounds in the systematic review process. By investing time in relationship-building, creating a safe environment and recruiting a diverse group of contributors, we gained richer insights that enhanced the coding framework. The complexity and nature of the methodology could make it challenging to identify where public contributors can make a real difference to research. Our experiences demonstrate that such involvement is possible and generates mutual benefits, including research that is better designed to reflect the diversity of the population.
conclusionThis paper outlines the steps undertaken to involve public contributors in the systematic review process. Key suggestions include investing time to build relationships, providing ongoing feedback, incorporating creative activities and developing strategies for disseminating research findings to wider audiences. These recommendations build on existing guidance and aim to support researchers in effectively involving public contributors in the systematic review process. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: All public contributors working on the vaccination uptake project have been involved in reviewing this paper. Two public contributors P.D. and B.D. are also co-authors and have provided input to the writing and review of this manuscript.
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.