ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026
Co-developing preoperative therapy for Dupuytren's fasciectomy: lived experience and clinical expertise.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHarnessing Lived Experience Expertise (LEE) and Clinical Expertise (CE) is essential for patient-centred research. Yet transparent reporting and critical reflection on their impact remain limited. This study details an iterative approach to integrating LEE and CE in the development of a preoperative therapy intervention for Dupuytren’s fasciectomy, evaluating their influence on study design and implementation.
objectiveTo assess how LEE and CE shape intervention development, influence research decisions, and to identify associated challenges, successes, and best practice for integration into clinical research.
methodsA structured, multi-phase approach is implemented using the GRIPP2 short-form, a validated Patient and Public Involvement reporting framework. Activities include forming a steering committee, engaging patients and clinicians in intervention development, co-creating study materials, and refining trial protocols. Feedback is gathered through online meetings, surveys, and direct consultations. A LEE contributor co-authors this study, ensuring patient perspectives were embedded throughout.
resultsIntegrating LEE and CE leads to significant refinements in study design, including development of intervention content aligned LEE/CE priorities, clearer and more accessible patient-facing materials and outcome measures that reflect real-world patient concerns. Challenges include sustaining contributor engagement over time and balancing patient and clinician priorities.
conclusionEmbedding LEE and CE strengthens feasibility, and acceptability of intervention and research processes. Lessons learned emphasise the need for flexible, iterative engagement strategies and structured reporting to optimise involvement and enhance impact. Future work should explore how reporting frameworks support sustained contributor engagement and how LEE and CE shape accessibility, relevance and implementation of clinical research.
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.