Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42104259›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2026

Patient and public involvement in pragmatic trials with older adults: a multi-methods study of researchers' experiences.

Anne Spinewine, Perrine Evrard, Pascale Nevins, Tokandji Adda, Shelley Vanderhout, Karina Branje, Joanne Hutton, Maureen Smith, Monica Taljaard, Stuart G Nicholls

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 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

10 authors.

Anne SpinewineClinical Pharmacy and Pharmacoepidemiology Research Group (CLIP), Louvain Drug Research Institute (LDRI), UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium. anne.spinewine@uclouvain.be.
Perrine EvrardClinical Pharmacy and Pharmacoepidemiology Research Group (CLIP), Louvain Drug Research Institute (LDRI), UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Pascale NevinsMethodological & Implementation Research (MIR) Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Tokandji AddaClinical Pharmacy and Pharmacoepidemiology Research Group (CLIP), Louvain Drug Research Institute (LDRI), UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Shelley VanderhoutSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Karina BranjeAcute Care Research Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Joanne HuttonAcute Care Research Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Maureen SmithPatient Partner, Ottawa, Canada.
Monica Taljaard *Methodological & Implementation Research (MIR) Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Stuart G Nicholls *Methodological & Implementation Research (MIR) Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient and Public Involvement (PPI) in health research, including clinical trials, enhances research relevance and quality. However, data on PPI prevalence and characteristics in trials involving older adults remain scarce. We aimed to describe the prevalence and nature of PPI in trials with older adults and identify the main benefits and challenges associated with PPI in such trials.

methodsWe conducted a multi-methods study, embedded within a survey of 3,163 corresponding authors of pragmatic trials published between 2014 and 2019. We used authors' self-reports and an electronic search filter to identify the subset involving the older adult population (≥65 years). We approached interested respondents who indicated that they had conducted PPI to participate in a semi-structured interview. Survey results were summarized using descriptive statistics, and interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis.

resultsOne hundred authors met the eligibility criteria, having completed the survey and been involved in a trial involving older adults. Most respondents were women (64.8%). PPI was reported in 46.0% of trials, primarily involving in-person discussions. Most respondents (90.7%) perceived PPI as beneficial, citing improved interventions, increased applicability of findings, higher research quality, and enhanced recruitment/retention. Challenges included communicating trial design, methods, and results (62.5%), identifying or recruiting PPI partners (50%), scheduling meetings (45.8%), and sustaining involvement (45.8%). Thematic analysis of N=8 interviews revealed five main themes related to challenges, some specific to older adults: recruitment and retention of PPI partners, importance of a good PPI chair, training for PPI partners, workload for researchers and burden for PPI partners, and procedural barriers. PPI partners influenced various research aspects, sometimes described as exceeding expectations, by influencing aims and outcomes to measure, developing interventions, refining patient-facing materials, aiding recruitment and retention, and contributing to analysis and interpretation of results.

conclusionDespite being implemented in fewer than half of the trials, PPI had a significant perceived impact. Addressing identified challenges, both general and specific to older adults, could enhance PPI uptake, as well as the quality and relevance of research.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationPatient ParticipationPragmatic Clinical Trials as TopicResearch PersonnelAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesOlder adultPatient and public involvement in researchPatient involvementPragmatic trialSeniorStakeholder engagement

Identifiers

PMID42104259
PMCPMC13326396

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.