ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026
Exploring staff and students' understanding and experience of Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) in an Irish University.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of this study was to explore staff and students' understanding and experiences of Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) at University College Cork (UCC), taking into account the university's recent establishment of a dedicated research unit to advance PPI capacity. The study sought to identify the barriers, facilitators, and opportunities for strengthening and embedding high-quality PPI within the university's research practices.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was distributed via email and social media to all UCC staff and students. The 18-item survey, informed by prior instruments and refined with PPI and stakeholder input, captured quantitative and qualitative data relating to PPI understanding, awareness, satisfaction, motivation, barriers, and enablers. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis.
findingsA total of 289 respondents took part in the survey, of whom 69.1% (186/269) were staff members and 30.9% (83/269) were students. Analyses were based on the number of respondents who answered each item. Overall, 64.4% (168/261) rated their PPI knowledge as reasonable, good, or very good, supported by their ability to correctly identify authentic examples of PPI. Among those familiar with PPI, just over half (51.6%, 98/190) had implemented it in their research. The top reported barriers were funding (50%, 81/162), time constraints (48.8%, 79/162), and concerns about tokenistic engagement (42.6%, 69/162). Content analysis of free-text responses highlighted the need for both structural and cultural changes to enable meaningful PPI, including institutional recognition and integration, improved resourcing and funding, fair treatment and remuneration, and cultural and attitude change. Respondents also identified three priority areas for future training: 1. PPI recruitment and facilitation, 2. Managing and communicating with contributors, and 3. Securing funding for PPI activities.
conclusionThis study demonstrates that while UCC staff and students report a generally strong understanding of PPI, this level of understanding and implementation varies by department. Practical implementation remains limited and constrained by barriers such as time, funding, and tokenism. Addressing these challenges requires institutional commitment, resources, and cultural change. Prioritising targeted training alongside structural supports offers clear opportunities to strengthen capacity and embed meaningful PPI within the university research environment.
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.