ArticleJournal of participatory medicine2026
Real-Time Cardiac Biofeedback Intervention: Experiences of Patient and Public Involvement in a Randomized Controlled Trial.
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.
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
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
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.