ArticlePloS one2025
Patient and public involvement in developing and validating an instrument for assessing the scaling potential of innovations in health and social services: A consensus study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Beyond one-size-fits-all: mapping information-seeking and decision-making pathways in cancer care.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBefore proven health innovations are scaled, an assessment of their scaling potential can save resources and assure quality at scale. Involving the beneficiaries of scaling is necessary for it to be effective and relevant. We aimed to develop, with patient and public involvement (PPI), an instrument for assessing the scalability of innovations in health and social services and to establish content validity.
methodsWe conducted a multiphase study based on the Integrated Knowledge Translation approach and the Montreal Model for PPI. A steering committee provided feedback throughout the project. Informed by a systematic review, the research team and steering committee selected promising items for inclusion in the instrument. In a two-round online Delphi process, patients and public representatives and other expert panellists reached consensus on the relevance, clarity and necessity of each item. Finally, with a patient partner and two scaling teams we developed the instrument and a manual.
resultsThe steering committee consisted of a patient partner, an expert in health measures and two policymakers who were experts in scaling. Based on the systematic review, we retained 43 items covering 12 domains. Two new items related to PPI and sex- and gender-sensitive scaling were validated by the committee. A 24-member Delphi panel assessed the resulting 45 items for content validity. Patients and public representatives constituted 29.1% of the panel and researchers 25%. Fourteen items were excluded for not reaching content validity thresholds. The final selection included three items added by panellists (consideration of national and local legislation, disadvantages of not scaling, and equity). Despite a low score, an item on sex and gender was retained as being essential for redressing consequences of inequities in health research.
conclusionThe final tool, the Innovation Scalability Self-administered Questionnaire (ISSaQ 4.0), includes 37 items across 12 domains and is available in French and English.
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.