ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2025
Comment on "the public perspective" and "a public perspective" - a PPI professional's reflection on the tension around diversifying public perspectives in public involvement.
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.
- Do Androids Dream of Lived Experience? Navigating Risks, Uncertainty, and Best Practices Around Generative AI in Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Put purpose before process: lessons from evaluating patient involvement in governance structures in health research organisations.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Expertise or representation: What gives people with lived experience authority and legitimacy in involvement in research?Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- A three-way partnership: reflections and lessons from co-producing social care research with practitioners, researchers and the public.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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The theoretical basis of the terminology and language used around patient and public involvement (PPI) and related methodologies is important. Though significant efforts have been made to understand identities and perspectives as more varied, diverse, and plural phenomena, it is important to continuously critique and analyse the language and concepts that we, as PPI professionals, researchers, and public collaborators use throughout our work and activities. In this comment piece, I use conceptual thinking and creative writing to reflect on my professional experience working in PPI to think critically and theoretically about a commonly used phrase in research and PPI spaces, the singular articles and nouns of the phrases, "the public perspective" and "a public perspective."
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.