Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42316242›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026

Patient and public involvement in health and social care doctoral research: recommendations co-produced by doctoral researchers, public contributors, and a public involvement coordinator.

Jordan Curry, Sarah P Bowers, Alexandra Wray, Anne Fearfull, Helen Roberts

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Jordan CurryWolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Allam Medical Building 3rd Floor, Cottingham Road, Hull, East Yorkshire, Hull, HU6 7RX, UK. Jordan.Curry@hyms.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4060-5090
Sarah P BowersSchool of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.
Alexandra WrayWolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Allam Medical Building 3rd Floor, Cottingham Road, Hull, East Yorkshire, Hull, HU6 7RX, UK.
Anne FearfullSchool of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.
Helen RobertsHull York Medical School, University of Hull, Allam Medical Building 3rd Floor, Cottingham Road, Hull, East Yorkshire, HU6 7RX, Hull, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 223499/Z/21/ZYorkshire Cancer Research HEND405
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient and Public Involvement (PPI) is a continually growing component of health and social care research in the UK and internationally, ensuring that research is conducted with and by the public rather than simply about them. Doctoral research represents a critical opportunity to embed meaningful PPI early in researchers' careers, yet practical recommendations tailored to this context remain limited. Existing studies often focus on individual case reflections or programme-level evaluations, with few capturing the collective experiences of doctoral researchers, PPI contributors, and coordinators. This paper aims to co-produce practical recommendations to support meaningful patient and public involvement in doctoral health and social care research. MAIN BODY: This paper presents co-produced reflections and recommendations to support PPI in doctoral research. The writing process was approached collaboratively, with a team incorporating public contributors, doctoral researchers, and a public involvement coordinator working together through iterative discussion and revision. The approach aligns with the principles of authentic co-production, creating both "space to talk" through open, respectful dialogue and "space to change" through mutual adaptation. The team's experiences highlighted both shared benefits and challenges within the process. PPI enriched doctoral research by refining study design, questions, enhancing recruitment, and improving accessibility of outputs, while also offering PPI contributors opportunities for learning and impact. Challenges included managing emotional topics, balancing timelines, and recognising that not all suggestions could be implemented. The coordinator's role proved vital in bridging between researchers and public contributors, supporting communication, reimbursement processes, and continuity of relationships. Doctoral researchers emphasised the importance of building trust, using accessible language, and developing distinct relational skills alongside academic expertise. From these collective insights, the team developed practical recommendations for three key audiences: doctoral students, PPI contributors, and PPI coordinators.

conclusionPPI in doctoral research offers mutual benefits for contributors and early-career researchers, strengthening both research quality and personal and professional development. Genuine co-production requires time, respect, and institutional support, but can foster strong partnerships and more relevant, impactful research. The recommendations presented here aim to help doctoral researchers, PPI contributors, and coordinators embed authentic, equitable, and sustainable involvement across health and social care research.

Indexed as

Collaborative researchDoctoral studiesParticipatory researchPatient and public involvement (PPI)PhD researchPPI in doctoral trainingPublic contributorsPublic engagementReflections on involvementResearch co-production

Identifiers

PMID42316242
PMCPMC13281605

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.