ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026
Benefits and challenges of a Patient & Public Involvement (PPI) peer researcher.
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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Involving a patient and public involvement (PPI) peer researcher with lived experience in clinical research is a relatively new concept and to our knowledge, has not been described in adult cardiac surgery. The integration of a PPI peer researcher with a lived experience of a surgical site infection (SSI) was an exploratory component of work associated with an NIHR-funded, mixed-methods study evaluating patients and caregivers' preferences for post-discharge SSI monitoring. The PPI peer researcher worked alongside an academic colleague, participating in patient observations, qualitative interviews, and thematic analysis. Their shared and personal experiences appeared to encourage some participants to disclose nuanced concerns that differed in tone and content from those shared with the academic researcher, offering an additional perspective to inform collaborative reflection. This approach did, however, present a series of practical challenges: inconsistent hospital approvals, fragmented site-based training requirements, and unclear approval processes created barriers and increased the workload of the academic team. This commentary aims to describe the practical feasibility, perceived benefits and challenges encountered when integrating a PPI peer researcher into this cardiac surgical research programme.
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.