ArticleIndian journal of psychiatry2025
Patient and public involvement in Indian mental health trials: Reflections on CONSORT 2025 and the path ahead.
Article in Indian journal of psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly mandated in clinical research globally, reflected in recent updates to the CONSORT 2025 and SPIRIT 2025 guidelines, which now require structured reporting of PPI activities. These developments signal a shift toward inclusive, accountable, and co-produced research, recognizing the value of experiential knowledge in improving trial relevance and impact. However, Indian mental health clinical trials have yet to meaningfully adopt PPI, despite growing evidence of its feasibility and value in low- and middle-income countries. This commentary critically examines the current state of PPI in Indian mental health trials, drawing insights from two prominent studies-the MANAS and ARTEMIS trials. While both incorporate some elements of stakeholder engagement, they stop short of full co-production and lack formal integration of persons with lived experience (PWLE) in governance, evaluation, or authorship. We identify systemic, cultural, and operational barriers to authentic PPI and propose strategic pathways to embed it in Indian mental health research. These include mandating PPI in funding requirements, integrating it into ethical oversight, building capacity among researchers and PWLE, and adapting reporting tools like GRIPP2 for Indian contexts. Embedding PPI is both an ethical imperative and a scientific opportunity to strengthen mental health trials and their implementation.
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.