ArticleThe patient2026
Evaluation Tools for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Health Research: A Scoping Review.
Article in The patient, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- "It gives me confidence and value": evaluating All_Ears@UoS patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group three years on.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Bridging Lived and Expert Experience: A Qualitative Study Exploring Lived-Experience Experts' and Researchers' Experiences of Public Engagement in Cancer Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Embedding Consumer-Led Research in a Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- The Professional-Volunteer Paradox: Transforming Lived Experience into a Sense of Purpose in Dutch Oncology Patient Advocacy.The patient · 2026Article
- Patient and public involvement and engagement in Long COVID research: embedding inclusion in research.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Frameworks to Evaluate the Quality of Public Involvement in Health and Social Care Research: A Scoping Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) is crucial for aligning research with public needs, reducing research waste, and enhancing the relevance and quality of evidence. Evaluating PPI is necessary to ensure its effectiveness. However, despite its recognised importance, researchers have reported a lack of robust tools for evaluating PPI systematically. To clarify which tools are used to evaluate PPI in health research, we conducted a scoping review.
objectiveWe aimed to identify and map evaluation tools that have been used in empirical health research studies to assess PPI, and to describe reported outcomes related to PPI.
methodsA scoping review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. A comprehensive search was undertaken in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus to identify studies published between 2021 and 2024 describing evaluation tools for PPI in health research contexts. Studies evaluating PPI were included, irrespectively of tool validation. Study selection and data charting were guided by principles from structured extraction frameworks and results were synthesised descriptively and narratively.
resultsThirty studies were included. Positive personal outcomes for PPI partners were reported, including increased well-being and skill development. Despite the existence of robust validated evaluation tools, many were adapted or developed de novo. An 'us vs them' dynamic was noted, reflecting differing engagement levels between PPI partners and researchers during evaluations. The need for additional training for both PPI partners and researchers to enhance collaboration was a recurring theme.
conclusionsPatient and public involvement evaluation tools are often developed or adapted to fit specific contexts, with multiple methods used for assessment. Challenges include low researcher response rates in evaluations and the need for better researcher preparedness for PPI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40911270What 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.