Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40660365›Full record

ReviewResearch involvement and engagement2025

Developing a role for patients and the public in the implementation of health and social care research evidence into practice: the PIPER study (Pathways to Implementation for Public Engagement in Research) realist evaluation protocol.

Sophie Staniszewska, Julia Walsh, Joe Langley, Krysia Dziedzic, Alice Moult, Nick Andrews, Chris Bain, Lindsay Bearne, Paul Bird, Tracy Gazeley and 9 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

19 authors.

Sophie StaniszewskaWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK. Sophie.Staniszewska@warwick.ac.uk.
Julia WalshWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Joe LangleyLab4Living, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, S1 1WB, UK.
Krysia DziedzicImpact Accelerator Unit, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK.
Alice MoultImpact Accelerator Unit, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK.
Nick AndrewsFaculty of Medicine, Health and Life Science, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP, Wales, UK.
Chris BainHealthwatch Warwickshire, 4-6 Clemens Street, Leamington Spa, CV31 2DL, UK.
Lindsay BearneSchool of Health and Medical Sciences , Tooting Campus City St. Georges, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, SW17 ORE, UK and NIHR Dissemination and Knowledge Mobilisation Team, Central Commissioning Facility, Grange House, 15 Church Street, Twickenham, TW1 3 NL, UK.
Paul BirdInstitute of Applied Health, University of Birmingham, Institute of Translational Medicine, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham Health Trust, Institute for Translational Medicine, Heritage Building, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, B15 2TH, UK.
Tracy GazeleyUniversity Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, CV2 2DX, UK.
Richard GrantPPI Advisor to ARC WM, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, United Kingdom.
Gary HickeySchool of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom.
Rebekah LuffMy Home Life England, School of Health and Medical Sciences, City, St George's, University of London, London, EC1V 0HB, UK.
Jo Rycroft-MaloneFaculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4 AT, United Kingdom.
Kate SeersWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, United Kingdom.
Magdalena SkrybantInstitute for Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2 TT, United Kingdom.
Dawn StaceyUniversity of Ottawa and Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 200 Lees Avenue, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6NS, Canada.
Laura SwaithesImpact Accelerator Unit, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK.
Mark RasburnNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2 Redman Place, London, E20 1 JQ, United Kingdom.

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research HSDR Project:NIHR150711
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile patients and the public are routinely involved as active collaborators in health and social care research, they are rarely involved in the implementation of research. The PIPER (Pathways to Implementation for Public Engagement in Research) research questions are: 1. How can patients, carers, service users and the public be involved in the implementation of health and social care research evidence into practice? 2. What types of roles, contributions and impact can patients, carers, service users and the public make to the implementation of health and social care evidence into practice? 3. How can we support patients, service users, carers and the public to contribute to the implementation of health and social care evidence into practice? 4. How can we co-produce the knowledge that explores a greater role for patients, carers, service users and the public in the implementation of health and social care evidence into practice?

methodsOur overarching methodological framework is realist evaluation. This study includes four work packages with a cross-cutting co-production theme. •Work Package 1: A realist review of published literature, grey literature and sources such as blogs. •Work Package 2: Interviews with 40-60 people using a realist approach. •Work Package 3: A series of workshops to co-design the PIPER Toolkit. •Work Package 4: Pilot evaluation of the PIPER Toolkit.

resultsThe scoping of the literature will be informed by the development of an initial programme theory that identifies the potential breadth of the field of public involvement in implementation. Data from the WP2 interviews will be used to iteratively refine the development of the context, mechanism and outcomes (CMOs). This will inform the PIPER Toolkit, which will consist of a set of 'Guiding Principles' supported by 'Practical Resources.' The PIPER Toolkit will enable an individual or a group to plan and undertake implementation activities. More specifically, the Guiding Principles will enable the Practical Resources to be tailored to specific implementation strategies for an individual or group. DISCUSSION: Patient and public involvement in implementation is an emerging area of practice and is likely to significantly strengthen over the next decade. The PIPER Toolkit will recognise this early stage of development, identifying the key system enablers that organisations need to have in place to support this activity. The Toolkit will support patients and the public and implementation teams to navigate the field of implementation practice. The PIPER study will challenge the field of implementation and knowledge mobilisation research to develop clearer forms of partnership with patients and the public in both research and practice.

Indexed as

ImplementationKnowledge mobilisationPatient and public involvementPublic engagementRealist evaluation

Identifiers

PMID40660365
PMCPMC12261769

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.