ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2026
Balancing Trade-Offs in Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement in Rapid Evaluation: Reflections and Lessons.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) is recognised as essential to high-quality health and care research. However, there is limited guidance on how to sustain meaningful involvement in rapid evaluations characterised by compressed timelines and shifting priorities.
objectiveTo reflect on how PPIE developed within the NIHR Rapid Service Evaluation Team (RSET) and to identify practical lessons for navigating tensions between influence, feasibility, and equity in time-pressured contexts.
methodsThis practice-based critical reflection draws on internal documentation, shared reflections, and evaluation activities from 13 rapid evaluations (2018-2026). Using the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum as a guiding tool, we mapped RSET's PPIE approach across three phases: Early Phase, Developing Maturity, and Current Position, highlighting trade-offs in practice.
resultsEarly involvement was meaningful but ad hoc, constrained by limited infrastructure and resources. As the programme matured, more structured yet flexible approaches were introduced, including a standing PPIE panel, tailored involvement aligned to lived experience, and earlier engagement at key decision points. Involvement practice required ongoing negotiation of trade-offs, including Depth vs Speed, Inclusivity vs Practicality, Consistency vs Flexibility, Relationship-building vs Time, and Value vs Feasibility.
conclusionsMeaningful PPIE in rapid evaluations is achievable when involvement is planned intentionally, responsive to context, and supported by strong collaboration and communication. Rather than pursuing full co-production, effective involvement focuses on relationships and influence where it adds most value, offering transferable lessons for involvement practice in fast-paced research settings. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This paper examines PPIE practice. Public contributors were involved in the programme, contributed to the development of PPIE approaches and practices, and reflected on their experiences. One co-author was a public contributor who helped shaped the interpretation and lessons presented in this paper.
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.