Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42007776›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2026

Evaluating Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement Activity Within the 3DPiPPIn Trial: A Qualitative Exploration of Contributors' Perspectives on Their Impact.

Ime Umoabasi, Stephanie K Mansell, Swapna Mandal, Cherry Kilbride, Stephen T Hilton, Eleanor Main, Silvia Schievano, Tamsin Callaghan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

8 authors.

Ime UmoabasiUniversity College London, London, UK.ORCID 0009-0007-8404-3372
Stephanie K MansellUniversity College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2806-380X
Swapna MandalUniversity College London, London, UK.
Cherry KilbrideRoyal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.
Stephen T HiltonUniversity College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8782-4499
Eleanor MainUniversity College London, London, UK.
Silvia SchievanoUniversity College London, London, UK.
Tamsin CallaghanRoyal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9258-8504

Funding

NIHR Doctoral Fellowship 302337
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPatient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) is now considered essential to the delivery of high-quality, patient-centred and translational research. However, despite widespread recognition of this, PPIE remains poorly understood, inconsistently utilised and inadequately reported.

objectiveThis study aimed to report, discuss and analyse the PPIE activities undertaken within 3DPiPPIn-a randomised control trial investigating the feasibility of using 3D printing to develop customised masks for patients receiving positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy. Emphasis was placed on analysing the wider impacts of these activities, including the impact on Patient Advisory Group (PAG) members.

methodsData were collected from PAG members via 1:1 semi-structured interviews, which took place either face-to-face or online as per members' preference. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed in NVivo using Braun and Clarke's Six-Phase Reflexive Thematic Analysis.

resultsThree PAG members were interviewed; two were conducted remotely via Microsoft Teams, while the third took place face-to-face. Analysis resulted in the identification of three themes: 'Disparate perceptions of PPIE influence in research', 'Empowered and enriched through PPIE' and 'Navigating the evolving experience and hurdles of PPIE'. PAG members described their influence on the trial as variable, feeling their involvement was impactful in some instances and insignificant in others. Despite this, they unanimously agreed that PAG involvement had a positive personal impact and that their experiences of PPIE were diverse and dynamic. Within the subtheme 'Supports and stumbling blocks for PPIE', members reflected on facilitators and barriers to PPIE. For example, the relaxed environment created by the Principal Investigator was seen to have promoted open discussion, while personal challenges sometimes diverted their focus from their role as a PAG member.

conclusionThis Reflexive Thematic Analysis explored the impact of PPIE on the 3DPiPPIn trial from the perspective of its PAG members. It exemplifies PPIE best practice and highlights areas for improvement to other researchers, advocating for meaningful rather than tokenistic PPIE. By encouraging excellence in PPIE, this report could enhance public engagement in research and, by demonstrating the impact and importance of quality PPIE, could inspire funders to ensure the provision of adequate PPIE resources.

trial registrationEmbedded within the 3DPiPPIn trial (ISRCTN 74082423).

Indexed as

Community ParticipationPatient ParticipationHumansInterviews as TopicQualitative ResearchRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicimpact evaluationinterviewsPatient Advisory GroupPatient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE)qualitative researchThematic Analysis

Identifiers

PMID42007776
PMCPMC13094355

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.