ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Patient and Public Involvement in Paediatric Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trials: A Mixed Methods Study.
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesPatient and public involvement (PPI) in the design, conduct, and dissemination of pragmatic trials may make trial results more relevant and meaningful. The nature of PPI in paediatric pragmatic trials has been poorly characterized in the literature. This study examined the prevalence and nature of PPI in paediatric pragmatic trials and lessons learned from researchers' experiences.
methodsFor this mixed methods study, we conducted an online survey and semi-structured interviews with corresponding authors of published paediatric pragmatic trials, identified using an online search filter in MEDLINE. Descriptive statistics and qualitative thematic analysis were used to analyse the data.
resultsPPI was reported by 71/127 (56%) survey respondents. Reported impacts of PPI in the survey included the following: more feasible interventions (71%), higher-quality research (57%), improved recruitment and retention (57%), and increased applicability of research findings (57%). Both survey and interview participants identified that insufficient resources, time, and training for relationship development were challenges to PPI in paediatric trials. Three themes were identified from the semi-structured interview data (recruitment and engagement, sustaining PPI relationships, and PPI value added).
conclusionsPPI aligns with the purpose and intended impact of pragmatic trials, and paediatric researchers perceive that PPI leads to increased research relevance, quality, and dissemination. There is, however, a need for institutional and funding bodies to invest in PPI partnership, including offering support for researchers and providing opportunities for children, youth, and parents as PPI partners.
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.