ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026
Patient and public involvement in pulmonary embolism research: insights from the development of a pulmonary embolism follow-up care model.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCollaboration between patients, healthcare professionals (HCPs), and researchers is essential to ensure that research and healthcare services meet end-users’ needs. However, patient and public involvement (PPI) in venous thromboembolism research remains limited. PURPOSE: To explore and evaluate PPI in the development of a structured follow-up care model for patients with pulmonary embolism (PE).
methodA prospective embedded case study was conducted within a Danish PE research project. Data was collected through observations, semi-structured interviews with patient representatives, HCPs, and researchers, and from written and visual materials. Analysis was guided by the UK standards for public involvement.
resultPatients contributed at multiple levels across the research stages, from indirect representation through experience-based data generated via patient journey mapping to active co-production in workshops and sustained collaboration with a patient research partner (PRP). Key facilitators included sustained partnership, preparation for participation, and multiple modes of involvement. Identified barriers related to insufficient alignment of expectations, structural constraints in meeting formats, and the dominance of clinical language, which at times limited patient representatives’ ability to contribute on equal terms. Observational data confirmed that patient contributions were incorporated into the final model, particularly regarding psychosocial recovery, validation of persistent symptoms, and the development of patient-facing materials.
conclusionPPI contributed substantively to the development of a structured post-PE care model aligned with patients’ needs and preferences. Early role clarification, sustained involvement across research stages, and attention to communication practices were central to facilitating meaningful PPI in the research process.
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.