ArticleBMJ open2026
Mapping the direct and indirect costs of patient and public involvement (PPI) in stroke and aphasia research: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly embedded in stroke and aphasia participatory research, enhancing relevance and inclusivity. While the benefits of PPI are well-documented, the costs, both direct (eg, honoraria, travel, accessibility materials) and indirect (eg, time, administrative burden, emotional labour), remain poorly reported. This scoping review aims to (1) identify and categorise direct and indirect costs of PPI in stroke research, (2) examine how these costs are defined, reported or implied, (3) map cost-related barriers and facilitators and (4) expose evidence gaps to inform the Mapping the Economic and Social Tangible and Emotional Resources of Patient and Public Involvement (MASTER-PPI) framework. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines, we will search Medline, PUBMED, Embase, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science, as well as grey literature (NIHR INVOLVE, Horizon Europe, non-governmental organisation (NGO) reports). Eligible studies include those reporting or implying direct or indirect costs of PPI in stroke research. Two reviewers will independently screen and extract data, which will be synthesised descriptively and thematically. Findings will be aligned with the MASTER-PPI framework. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal publications, conference presentations, social media posts in lay language and policy briefs tailored for NGOs and funders. REGISTRATION: This protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework (OSF) (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/VM9ZU).
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.