ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026
Giving credit where credit's due - recognition of patient partners in health research.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2026. 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.
- Patient and public involvement and engagement in Long COVID research: embedding inclusion in research.Research involvement and engagement · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient partnership in health research has gained prominence over the last decade. Patient partners and the impact of their perspectives on research activities and outcomes are increasingly valued. However, despite the recognized importance of patient contributions, issues persist regarding their visibility in research outputs. While guidelines for authorship and acknowledgment of patient partners exist, inconsistencies in their application remain prevalent. This commentary surveys the current landscape of authorship, acknowledgement, and indexing practices for patient involvement in health research. We highlight three persistent challenges: (1) insufficient recognition of patient partners who meet the criteria for co-authorship or formal acknowledgment; (2) vague reporting of patient partner contributions within manuscripts; and (3) widely varying terminology and indexing terms that hinder discoverability in academic databases. To address these challenges, we propose actionable recommendations: Following existing reporting guidelines or instituting new guidelines for patient engagement within academic journals; documenting patient partner contributions in searchable fields of publications; and adopting consistent and standardized terminology for patient engagement. By implementing these changes, the health research community can better capture and recognize the valuable contributions of patient partners, thereby advancing Patient-Oriented Research practices and ultimately improving health outcomes for patients and families.
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.