Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41715201›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026

Development of a 4Pi national involvement standards-based questionnaire to evaluate patient and public involvement.

Kathryn Watson, Richard Morton, Maria Milenova, Hema Chaplin, Erin Letbe-Holder, Fiona Hackett, Bernadette Khoshaba, Kia-Chong Chua, Manuela Russo

Erratum issuedAbstract read
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. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Kathryn WatsonHealth Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Richard MortonImprovement Service, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Maria MilenovaHealth Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Hema ChaplinHealth Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Erin Letbe-HolderHealth Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Fiona HackettHealth Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Bernadette KhoshabaHealth Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Kia-Chong ChuaBiostatistics & Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Manuela RussoHealth Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. manuela.russo@kcl.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvaluation of patient and public involvement (PPI) is crucial to ensuring it is conducted with quality. However, determining how best to evaluate the experience of those doing involvement activities remains challenging, particularly given the complex landscape of diverse terminology and wide range of methods. There is a need for robust and accessible tools, grounded in established standards, that reflect the perspectives of patients and public contributors involved in PPI activities. To address this, we developed a questionnaire (4Pi Questionnaire) based on the 4Pi National Involvement Standards, a project that developed a framework around good practice and measurement, monitoring and evaluation of involvement activities.

methodsThe questionnaire was developed through an iterative process involving literature review, experts’ input and extensive consultation with PPI contributors. Initial items were generated deductively from the five domains of the 4Pi National Involvement Standards framework (i.e., Principle, Purpose, Presence, Process and Impact). Subsequent versions of the questionnaire were refined using a face validity workshop, a Questionnaire Appraisal System, and focus group-based cognitive interviewing (CI) with PPI contributors. Feedback focussed on clarity, relevance, accessibility and questionnaire structure. There was a final round of testing to assess accessibility and usability.

resultsThe 4Pi Questionnaire is a structured measure designed to capture experiences of involvement in diverse contexts across healthcare and research. The questionnaire consists of an introduction followed by 31 items grouped into two sections A and B. Section A (“Your experience of involvement”) includes 22 items relating to a single recent involvement activity and cover the five domains of the 4Pi National Involvement Standards framework. Respondents rate their agreement with 19 statements using a five-point Likert scale, and answer two open-ended questions. Section B (“About you”) collects demographic information. Completion time is approximately 15–30 min. Involvement of subject-matter experts and PPI contributors ensured clarity of language, relevance of each question, and usability of the questionnaire.

conclusionsGrounded in the 4Pi National Involvement Standards, the 4Pi Questionnaire provides an accessible and acceptable tool to measure the experiences and perceptions of patients and public contributors doing involvement activities. Systematically developed with and for people with lived experience, the 4Pi Questionnaire addresses a gap in the availability of standardised, meaningful measures and supports efforts to embed inclusive involvement practices across healthcare and research settings.

Indexed as

Co-designCognitive interviewing (CI)EvaluationParticipatory quality improvementPatient and public involvement (PPI)Questionnaire appraisal system (QAS)Questionnaire development

Identifiers

PMID41715201
PMCPMC13097933

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.