ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026
Challenges faced and lessons learnt while trying to review CHD care in India from parents' perspective.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Congenital heart disease (CHD) remains a major pediatric health challenge in India, yet the lived experiences of families navigating public schemes such as Rashtriya Bal Swasthya Karyakram (RBSK) and Ayushman Bharat are largely absent from research and policy discussions. Motivated by wide variations in access, referral pathways, financial protection, and follow-up support across states, we attempted a parent-led, multi-state review to understand how these schemes function for individuals with CHD. This commentary reflects on that attempt and highlights gaps not captured in administrative datasets, which typically report aggregate counts rather than information meaningful to end users. As parents without institutional affiliation, we quickly encountered structural barriers that made even a low-risk qualitative study difficult to initiate. ICMR provides for "Independent ECs", but independent researchers have no clear way to access or identify committees that can review qualitative, parent-led work. This limits practical feasibility. These challenges illustrate that community-initiated research is difficult to undertake without support or affiliation from researchers or clinicians within established institutions. Reflecting on this journey, we suggest that India needs dedicated mechanisms for community-led and parent- or patient-led research, clearer publishing guidelines, and national oversight structures (for policy implementation) that include patient and parent (or caregiver) representatives. Incorporating lived experience into CHD policymaking is essential for creating pathways that are realistic, equitable, and aligned with the everyday challenges faced by the CHD families.
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.