Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41074215›Full record

ReviewResearch involvement and engagement2025

Involving consumers in health research through the use of consumer panels: a scoping review.

Fiona Dangerfield, Virginia Dickson-Swift, Anne E M Brabers, Judith D de Jong, Joanne Adams, Sally Fraser, Dianne Lowe, Leigh Kinsman, Evelien Spelten

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

9 authors.

Fiona DangerfieldViolet Vines Marshman Centre for Rural Health Research, La Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, P.O. Box 199, Bendigo, Vic, 3552, Australia. Fiona.dangerfield@latrobe.edu.au.
Virginia Dickson-SwiftViolet Vines Marshman Centre for Rural Health Research, La Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, P.O. Box 199, Bendigo, Vic, 3552, Australia.
Anne E M BrabersNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research (Nivel), P.O. Box 1568, Utrecht, 3500 BN, The Netherlands.
Judith D de JongNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research (Nivel), P.O. Box 1568, Utrecht, 3500 BN, The Netherlands.
Joanne AdamsViolet Vines Marshman Centre for Rural Health Research, La Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, P.O. Box 199, Bendigo, Vic, 3552, Australia.
Sally FraserConsumer Researcher, Violet Vines Marshman Centre for Rural Health Research, La Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, P.O. Box 199, Bendigo, Vic, 3552, Australia.
Dianne LowePublic Involvement Strategy, Research Grants Development and Transformation Team, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, 3086, Australia.
Leigh KinsmanViolet Vines Marshman Centre for Rural Health Research, La Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, P.O. Box 199, Bendigo, Vic, 3552, Australia.
Evelien SpeltenViolet Vines Marshman Centre for Rural Health Research, La Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, P.O. Box 199, Bendigo, Vic, 3552, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe importance of involving the lived experience of consumers in health research is increasingly well recognised. There are multiple models of consumer involvement, with consumer panels one way of efficiently organising the involvement of people in health research. Consumer panels are a way of supporting ongoing or longer-term meaningful consumer involvement rather than one-off involvement in discrete research activities. The aim of this review was to map the depth and breadth of studies reporting the use of consumer panels in health research internationally and to synthesize this evidence to provide useful guidance for researchers interested in the development of consumer panels for research.

methodsA scoping review was conducted. Four databases were searched for English language studies from high income countries reporting on consumer panel member involvement in health research. Seven reviewers undertook title and abstract screening, and five reviewers undertook full text screening. Results were summarised and content analysis was undertaken to synthesise the findings. One rural health consumer contributed to screening, data interpretation and manuscript writing.

resultsA total of 71 papers were included in this review. Most papers were from the Netherlands (n = 28) and the United States (n = 21). The size of panels was either small (< 50 members) (n = 26) or large (> 200 members) (n = 34). There was great variation in panel composition and level of panel member involvement in research. Involvement was often limited to discrete stages of the research cycle, with details about sustained, meaningful engagement often lacking. Benefits of panel involvement were documented for both researchers and consumers; however, benefits to consumers were often less explicit, particularly in terms of long-term impact.

conclusionConsumer panels can offer valuable insights grounded in lived experience, which have the potential to improve the quality, relevance and equity of health research. However, the development and involvement of consumer panels in health research remain inconsistently reported and evaluated. Co-developing structures that support meaningful, ongoing participation will provide greater clarity around roles, evaluation and impact. This is essential for embedding consumer engagement meaningfully in research and translating it into health policy and practice change.

Indexed as

Consumer engagementConsumer involvementConsumer panelConsumer registryHealth researchPatient participationScoping review

Identifiers

PMID41074215
PMCPMC12512822

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.