ReviewBMJ open2025
Mixed identity is an identity: embracing the people involved in research partnerships.
Review in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Meaningful Patient and Public Involvement in Intensive Care Research-A PEIRS-22 Survey.Nursing in critical care · 2026Article
- Patient- and Public-Led Research - How Is It Defined and Practiced: A Scoping Review.Journal of patient experience · 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
introductionPatient and public involvement (PPI) in health research has gained prominence, with patients and public actively shaping research priorities, study design and knowledge translation. While the benefits and challenges of PPI are well documented, less attention has been given to the complexity of navigating multiple identities as research team members. Often, patients and public, academics and clinicians share many of the same goals and occupy overlapping roles, yet research structures rarely acknowledge or accommodate this fluidity. This commentary explores how shared identities of patients and public, academics and clinicians shape research partnerships, challenging conventional boundaries by questioning whether patients and public can also serve as academics or clinicians and vice versa.
methodsThis commentary is written from an interdisciplinary perspective, where insights are synthesised from existing literature, empirical knowledge and lived experience. The authors critically examine the intersection of patient and public, academic and clinician identities and discuss the implications for research partnerships. Recurring points of tension, including questions about the suitability of partnerships and the complexities of identity, are explored. The discussion considers how members of research teams navigate privilege and shared responsibility within collaborative settings. DISCUSSION: Although PPI aims to foster inclusivity, research partnerships often confine patients and public, academics and clinicians to rigid titles, overlooking the multidimensional identities of those involved. To advance research, practice and advocacy, it is foundational to embrace one's authentic self while recognising the full complexity of team members. Every individual brings a unique perspective and lived experience, and together, a research team shares the collective responsibility to produce rigorous, quality research that strengthens the body of evidence.
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.