ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026
Walking the walk: a case study of partnering with patients in designing and delivering a patient and public involvement implementation plan.
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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical Trials Units (CTUs) in the UK are required to integrate patient and public involvement (PPI) into their research and operational strategies to meet national standards and registration criteria. While PPI in individual clinical trials is increasingly documented, strategic-level involvement within CTUs remains underreported. The Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit (MRC CTU) at University College London (UCL) has embedded PPI across its organisational strategy, partnering with PPI representatives to co-develop and deliver annual PPI implementation plans aligned with a five-year communications strategy. DESCRIPTION OF PROCESS AND OUTCOMES: Since 2016 the MRC CTU at UCL has collaborated with its PPI Group, made up of staff and PPI representatives, to design and execute annual implementation plans that operationalise strategic PPI objectives. The 2024/25 plan included 18 activities, ranging from training and guidance development to evaluation and dissemination. All activities involved PPI representatives, with three led by them. Progress was monitored through predefined indicators and discussed in quarterly meetings. By year-end, 12 activities were fully achieved, five were underway, and one was postponed. Notable successes included high satisfaction with training sessions and the release of a podcast featuring PPI members. Challenges included delays in finalising a new participant information sheet template as a result of extensive internal review. The introduction of role descriptions for PPI representatives improved transparency and engagement for all parties.
conclusionThe MRC CTU at UCL’s strategic, co-designed approach to PPI fosters genuine partnership and integration of public involvement across the Unit. Annual implementation plans, collaboratively developed and evaluated, ensure alignment with long-term objectives and responsiveness to challenges. This model demonstrates how sustained, cross-cutting PPI can be effectively embedded in research infrastructure, contingent on core funding support. The approach offers a replicable framework for other CTUs aiming to enhance the impact of their strategic PPI. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.