Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41163113›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2025

A novel framework for operationalising patient and public involvement: lessons from designing an AI-informed exercise prescription grant.

Lucy Smith, Jacob Keast, Jo Flowers, Hajira Dambha-Miller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

4 authors.

Lucy SmithPrimary Care Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. lucy.smith@soton.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-7658-5522
Jacob KeastPrimary Care Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-1086-7248
Jo FlowersPublic contributor, Southampton, UK.
Hajira Dambha-MillerPrimary Care Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0175-443X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile grant funders such as the National Institute of Health and Care Research increasingly require patient and public involvement (PPI) across all stages of grant development, there remains limited documentation on how meaningful PPI involvement is operationalised, and how its impact is measured. This aim of this case study was to describe how PPI can be embedded in a research grant application to develop an Artificial Intelligence-informed exercise programme for individuals living with chronic illness.

methodsWe constructed a four-stage framework to operationalise the process of integrating PPI across the grant development process, including: gathering initial PPI feedback, establishing a lived experience advisory panel (LEAP), co-developing the grant submission, and conducting an impact assessment guided by the 2019 UK Standards for Public Involvement, GRIPP2 reporting checklist, and prior PPI expertise.

resultsOur framework for incorporating PPI across the grant development process was found to be impactful across all measures of the UK Standards for Public Involvement. Following stage 1, we implemented a sequential process for forming a lived experience advisory panel (stage 2) and demonstrated a robust, approach to document the impact of PPI on grant development (stage 4). Important themes that developed from the group feedback during stage 1 and 2 included concerns over trust and consistency of physical activity recommendations, empowerment through active engagement, meeting user needs, appropriateness of data collection methods, digital literacy and widening recruitment opportunities which influenced the grant design. Significant learnings from stage 3 and 4 for future PPI highlight the importance of considering wider contextual factors which influence the impact of PPI on grant development. Factors such as engaging with local community groups serving under-represented patient cohorts to increase the diversity of PPI participants, and consideration of PPI activity accessibility for those with chronic health conditions.

conclusionsThis paper provides a novel framework which can be used by researchers to plan and carry out meaningful PPI in their grant applications. Embedding PPI across the grant development process resulted in meaningful contributions that shaped the proposal and will continue to influence the project's trajectory. This paper recommends employing a clear methodology for involving PPI and capturing its impact from the outset to enhance the relevance, transparency, and inclusivity of research. This case study highlights the value of sustained and structured PPI in co-producing impactful health research and grant activities.

Indexed as

Healthcare researchPatient and public involvementPhysical activity and chronic illness

Identifiers

PMID41163113
PMCPMC12574169

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.