ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026
Experiences of patients and public partners in codesign of Lynch Choices™: an evaluation study using the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS-22).
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
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health research aims to make research more relevant, clear and useful to deliver results that matter most to people. PPIE can be valuable but it is not always easy. It is not yet part of every project. This paper shares a case study and review of PPIE in the Lynch Choices™ ( https://canchoose.org.uk ) co-design project. It adds to the evidence on good practice for PPIE in research.
methodsPatient Panel members and community partners completed the Patient Engagement in Research Scale (PEIRS-22). This short survey asked about practical arrangements, ease of taking part, contributions, teamwork, support, feeling valued and expected benefits. Each question was scored on a 5-point scale. We calculated scores for each person and the group. People also wrote personal stories about their experience. A researcher did the same. These stories gave deeper insight into feelings, ideas and experiences the survey might miss. They explained why people felt as they did and highlighted areas for improvement. We then looked for key themes in the stories using deductive and some inductive coding.
resultsTen out of 12 Patient Panel members, one Trustee of Lynch Syndrome UK, and one Trustee of Lynch Syndrome Ireland took part (12/14=86% response rate). The average score was 89 out of 100. The middle score was 93 out of 100, above the level called “very meaningful engagement”. Most scores were high in all areas. Quotes from the stories were grouped into seven themes, based on the PEIRS framework.
conclusionThis case study shows how trust, open two-way communication and strong working relationships helped make the Lynch Choices™ project a success. Mostly positive feedback was linked to people feeling valued and part of the team. Building these relationships took time. Contributors said that being part of the project was rewarding, enjoyable and motivating. Most suggested the project outputs would help others in practical and meaningful ways. This study adds to the evidence on PPIE in research, with recommendations for how to improve in future. PPIE should be adequately funded and planned from the start of projects. Two-way learning helps to share benefits with the people the research aims to help.
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.