Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41559835›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026

Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement within a UK blood cancer cohort: a case study.

Debra Howell, Carol Miller, Amy Rebane, Rebecca Sheridan, Eve Roman, Alexandra Smith

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

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. 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.

Debra HowellEpidemiology & Cancer Statistics Group, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK. debra.howell@york.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7521-7402
Carol MillerMember of the Public, Private Address, UK.
Amy RebaneLeeds NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, LS7 4SA, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-2475-3430
Rebecca SheridanEpidemiology & Cancer Statistics Group, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Eve RomanEpidemiology & Cancer Statistics Group, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7603-3704
Alexandra SmithEpidemiology & Cancer Statistics Group, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1111-966X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper presents a case study of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI), in which people shared their ‘lived experience’ as ‘experts’ who manage their blood cancer on a daily basis, within their own environment and social circumstances. The case study is set within an ongoing cohort study that was established in 2004 in the North of England, and currently includes ~ 55,000 newly diagnosed patients (no exclusions), increasing annually by ~ 2,500. Participants are invited to join a Patient Partnership, and if they agree may be asked to take part in PPI. PPI is conducted with selected patients, matched to the research question. It takes place during one-to-one or group consultations (interviews or focus groups), which may occur face-to-face or online, and during the daytime or evening, on a weekday or weekend, to provide various options and promote inclusivity. PPI meetings have generated advice on research priorities, website design and content, and study design and implementation; with more formal collaborations established within funding applications, and Oversight Committee and Sub-Committees. Researchers received practical assistance in preparing clear study paperwork written in plain language, for information leaflets and consent forms, academic papers, and summaries used to share findings on lay-websites and social media sites. Letters of support have also been provided for funding applications. PPI has underpinned the cohort’s ethical and governance approvals; and improved its methods, and the way in which findings are shared. Open Days and other meetings with patients and the public have raised awareness about the cohort and engaged people in the research process. People said they were pleased to take part in PPI and to have the opportunity to give something back. Factors for success were the inclusion of appropriate stakeholders, sufficient reimbursement, feedback on impact, skilled facilitators, and good governance. PPI activities will be strengthened within the cohort over coming years, by significant expansion in members of the Oversight Committee and Sub-Committees, from across the study area, and with an increased focus on underserved communities. Effective PPI requires sufficient time, skills, effort and resources; and it is important to be aware of changes in this rapidly developing area.

Indexed as

Blood cancerCarersEngagementHealthcareInvolvementPatientPublicResearch

Identifiers

PMID41559835
PMCPMC12821308

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.