Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41338630›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Development and piloting of a modular evaluation tool for patient and public involvement in health services research: protocol of a mixed-methods study.

Tharanya Seeralan, Lena Oster, Julia Jones, Elspeth Mathie, Martin Härter, Anna Levke Brütt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 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

6 authors.

Tharanya SeeralanDepartment for Medical Psychology, Centre for Psychosocial Medicine, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4431-0310
Lena OsterDepartment for Medical Psychology, Centre for Psychosocial Medicine, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-4744-2393
Julia JonesCentre for Research in Public Health and Community Care, School of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3221-7362
Elspeth MathieCentre for Research in Public Health and Community Care, School of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5871-436X
Martin HärterDepartment for Medical Psychology, Centre for Psychosocial Medicine, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7443-9890
Anna Levke BrüttDepartment for Medical Psychology, Centre for Psychosocial Medicine, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany a.bruett@uke.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4197-6048

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is limited evidence regarding the outcomes and impacts of Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research, mainly based on narrative studies. Existing frameworks for supporting and evaluating PPI often require adaptation to specific contexts, and comprehensive instruments are needed. From an international perspective, strengthening the scientific foundation that underpins PPI is crucial to generate stronger evidence to understand which approaches work best, in which contexts, and with what effects.

objectivesTo promote PPI implementation in German health research, this project aims to (1) Establish an evaluation framework, (2) Develop a modular evaluation tool in the form of a questionnaire and (3) Pilot and psychometrically validate the tool. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A three-phase mixed methods approach will be employed, integrating qualitative and quantitative data. First, we will explore with researchers, research partners and other stakeholders in health services research what contributes to meaningful and successful PPI through a web-based survey and focus groups. Findings are discussed in a codesign workshop in which participants agree on an evaluation framework based on a LOGIC model. Second, items from international instruments that evaluate PPI are deductively assigned to the evaluation framework. Further items are developed based on the focus groups from phase 1. Cognitive pretests and qualitative review will be conducted with researchers and patients in order to refine the item pool and develop the evaluation tool. Third, the evaluation tool with modules for researchers and patients will be piloted in a web-based survey. Data analysis will include thematic analysis for qualitative data and descriptive and psychometric analyses for quantitative data. A participatory research team will provide ongoing support throughout all project phases. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the Local Ethics Committee of the Centre for Psychosocial Medicine, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf (LPEK-0889). The study will follow the principles of the Helsinki Declaration and good scientific practice. Results will be disseminated at national and international conferences, public symposiums and in peer-reviewed journals, contributing to the internationally developing field of PPI in research and addressing relevant research gaps.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationHealth Services ResearchPatient ParticipationFocus GroupsGermanyHumansPilot ProjectsPsychometricsQualitative ResearchResearch DesignSurveys and QuestionnairesCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchHealth ServicesPatient ParticipationQUALITATIVE RESEARCHSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID41338630
PMCPMC12706111

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.