ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026
Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in lab-based research. What is the added value? Reflections from a researcher and public contributor 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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Expertise or representation: What gives people with lived experience authority and legitimacy in involvement in research?Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in research is a requirement for most health and care funding applications. Whilst there is a plethora of resources about how to actively involve patients and the public in applied and clinical research, resources tailored to non-clinical; laboratory-based research remain limited. There is also little evidence describing the added value PPI brings to researchers and public contributors in this setting. In this reflective case study, the authors explore how sustained PPI helped shape a non-clinical, lab-based research project over a three-year period and highlight learnings from both a researcher and public contributor perspective. The authors describe how involvement improved communication, the framing of research questions, and the development of translational relevance, outlining challenges and opportunities that emerged through iterative co-learning and reflexive dialogue. The experience of the authors highlights how PPI can foster meaningful engagement in basic science, contributing to translational advances for patients. Importantly, this collaboration also shaped researcher identity and contributed to career development, showing that involvement can influence not only research outputs but also professional direction and institutional culture.
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.