Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40583608›Full record

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.

Carmel McGrath, Sarah R Davies, Ifra Ali, Blessing Dick, Prakash Dewani, Clare E French

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Carmel McGrathNIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7777-2904
Sarah R DaviesNIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Ifra AliNIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Vaccines and Immunisation, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Blessing DickNIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Prakash DewaniNIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Clare E FrenchNIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

This project was funded by the NIHR Public Health Research Programme (Grant Reference Number: NIHR135130).
6 · The paper itself

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

Community ParticipationSystematic Reviews as TopicHumansVaccinationACTIVE frameworkfeedbackpublic involvementreciprocal learningsystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID40583608
PMCPMC12218336

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.