Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41818633›Full record

ArticleJournal of participatory medicine2026

Real-Time Cardiac Biofeedback Intervention: Experiences of Patient and Public Involvement in a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Marina Bobou, Michal Tanzer, Alkistis Saramandi, Caroline Selai, Paul M Jenkinson, Aikaterini Fotopoulou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of participatory medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Marina BobouResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, England, WC1E 7HB, United Kingdom, 44 20 7612 6143.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1875-309X
Michal TanzerResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, England, WC1E 7HB, United Kingdom, 44 20 7612 6143.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9780-7403
Alkistis SaramandiResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, England, WC1E 7HB, United Kingdom, 44 20 7612 6143.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1620-4190
Caroline SelaiDepartment of Clinical and Movement Neurosciences, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9698-3405
Paul M JenkinsonResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, England, WC1E 7HB, United Kingdom, 44 20 7612 6143.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6887-0457
Aikaterini FotopoulouResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, England, WC1E 7HB, United Kingdom, 44 20 7612 6143.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0904-7967

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is crucial for enhancing research quality and relevance and addressing health inequalities. PPI ensures that studies tackle relevant and meaningful questions, as there is a recognized need by the research community to document and share PPI studies to advance the field and encourage the adoption of such activities. Objective: The study aimed to provide a detailed report on the PPI activities undertaken to develop and implement a randomized controlled trial of a novel therapeutic tool designed to increase interoception and metacognition (ie, the Interoceptive Insight and Metacognitive Efficacy beliefs [InMe] trial). Methods: The InMe trial integrated insights from experts by experience, as well as from clinical and academic experts. This collaborative approach resulted in the development of a comprehensive trial across 4 main stages-design, delivery, results interpretation, and future planning. Results: Here, we highlighted the unique insights and the added value in incorporating PPI activities into our trial development and implementation, while reporting challenges and shortcomings that were identified throughout this process. Conclusions: PPI activities within the InMe trial led to meaningful changes, while collaborators expressed satisfaction and increased interest in interoception research. Further improvements on how to best support experts by experience when sharing their experiences were also identified.

Indexed as

biofeedbackeating disordersinteroceptionmental healthpatient and public involvementPPIsmartwatch

Identifiers

PMID41818633
PMCPMC12981545

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.