ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2025
Implementing patient and public involvement (PPI) in eye research: reflections from developing a research study on Geographic Atrophy treatment acceptability.
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. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The patient reported intraocular lens questionnaire (PR-ILQ): content validity, psychometric performance, and use in a regulated clinical trial to evaluate safety and effectiveness outcomes.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Trial
- Public and Patient Involvement in Research in the Fields of Inflammatory or Autoimmune Ocular Diseases: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Public involvement and co-design of longitudinal studies of sleep health alongside young people with rare genetic conditions.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Embedding public and patient involvement in childhood stuttering research: lessons learned from engaging children and families in Saudi Arabia.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAwareness of the importance of patient and public involvement (PPI) in ophthalmology research is growing, ensuring studies align with patient priorities and experiences. However, there is limited literature exploring the practicalities and details of how PPI may be conducted within this field. In this case study of PPI within an ophthalmological research project, we aim to provide a transparent, in-depth illustration of how PPI was implemented and helped to shape the Acceptability of Geographic Atrophy INjections (AGAIN) study. The AGAIN study is focused on patients' perspectives regarding the acceptability of new intravitreal (eye) injection treatments for Geographic Atrophy, an advanced form of age-related macular degeneration. MAIN TEXT: This commentary explores how PPI was undertaken to shape the design of the two work packages of the AGAIN study. In work package 1, the AGAIN pilot, we worked with a group of patient advisors to design materials for a mixed-methods questionnaire. This questionnaire consisted of Likert-type scale questions, semi-structured interview questions, and an elicitation task considering different hypothetical treatment scenarios. Eight patient advisors provided their input into the design of this questionnaire, and we discuss examples of the concrete changes to the research materials based on the advisors' feedback. In work package 2, we carried out several rounds of consultation with patient advisors to develop a pre-validated quantitative questionnaire on Geographic Atrophy treatment acceptability. This involved using 'think-aloud' techniques to explore the questionnaire's validity, clarity, and comprehensibility. We discuss some of the challenges that may arise when taking on board divergent points of view, and how to maximise comprehensibility without compromising fidelity to a validated questionnaire.
conclusionsOur experience attests to the importance of listening to the insights of patients and those with lived experience in the early stages of designing research, while also ensuring that PPI remains continually integrated throughout the study lifecycle. Our PPI approach evolved in an ad-hoc fashion, and we suggest that given its beneficial impact for our study, PPI should be carefully planned for and adequately resourced in patient-centred ophthalmological research programmes.
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.