ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026
Reflections on and recommendations from the OCEANIC study CYP and parent advisory group: a Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement case study.
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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) is increasingly recognised as essential to the relevance, feasibility, and impact of paediatric intensive/critical care research. However, reporting of PPIE processes and outcomes, particularly in child health studies, remains limited, often lacking detail on sustained involvement and its influence across the research lifecycle. CASE STUDY: This case study presents the PPIE approach embedded within the OCEANIC Study, a multi-centre longitudinal mixed-methods investigation into the outcomes and support needs of children and families following paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) discharge. The study uniquely sustained engagement with a Children, Young People and Parent Advisory Group (CYPPAG) over eight years, aligning with the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) standards for public involvement. We detail the strategies used to foster inclusive, respectful, and impactful collaboration, including co-development of study materials, iterative feedback on recruitment and retention strategies, and involvement in qualitative data interpretation and dissemination. The advisory group's contributions shaped study design, enhanced recruitment, and informed dissemination, including co-authorship and conference presentations. PPIE impact was explored qualitatively through CYPPAG feedback, tracking of study changes informed by the CYPPAG, and ongoing reflection within the research team.
conclusionThe OCEANIC Study demonstrates the feasibility and value of longitudinal, embedded PPIE in paediatric critical care research. It offers a novel model for sustained advisory group involvement, evidencing how meaningful collaboration can improve research relevance, rigour, and reach. This case study provides actionable insights for researchers seeking to integrate PPIE across the research continuum and highlights the therapeutic and empowering impact of involvement for contributors.
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.