ArticleBMJ open2026
Do patients and the public understand and feel engaged and valued after reading outcome set study invitations? A UK qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of core outcome sets (COSs) in health research is widely recommended. COSs are developed with input from key decision makers, patients being a vital group to ensure COS relevance. However, recruitment to COS studies can be challenging.
objectivesThe study aimed to explore what patients and the public think of COS study invitations, which are usually the first document a patient reads about a COS study.
designQualitative study involving focus groups and interviews. Analysis of transcribed data drew on reflexive thematic analysis. PARTICIPANTS AND
settingFocus groups and interviews were conducted with a diverse range of patients and the public (n=31) from community and patient groups in North West England, exploring their perceptions of a sample of COS study invitations. Participants were eligible if aged over 18 years, they could speak English and had never previously participated in a COS study.
resultsThemes identified included understanding, engagement, safety and accessibility. Participants were concerned about excessive information in the invitations which made them confused. Fear of cybercrime caused numerous concerns and participants were reluctant to click on links or attachments. Trust in the people sending the invitations was key. Participants wanted to see messages that COS studies had a meaningful purpose to feel their contributions were valuable. They were keen to contribute to improving future 'treatment' but less motivated to improve 'research'. Messages that evoked a feeling of connection with others who they could relate to were positively regarded. Participants also highlighted ways that invitations could be made more accessible.
conclusionCOS invitations can present numerous challenges for potential participants, but our study indicates ways that COS developers can address these challenges and make their invitations more appealing to potential participants. As part of the wider Good Research Invitation Study the findings have been used to inform guidance on designing a good COS invitation.
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.