Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42661234›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026

Engagement in women's health: a history.

Alison Gabrielle Perry, Edward Mullins

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

2 authors.

Alison Gabrielle PerryThe George Institute for Global Health at Imperial College London, London, UK. a.perry@imperial.ac.uk.
Edward MullinsThe George Institute for Global Health at Imperial College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In parts of the world, patient and public involvement has become an essential part of health and research. In women's health and research, there is a chronic lack of participation and inclusion of women throughout the research pathway. At the same time, the gender gap and bias in health data is increasingly recognised with urgency. Critics of conventional engagement and involvement methods cite tokenism, a chronic lack of investment, and pervasive structural biases as ongoing impediments to the implementation of"effective" or"meaningful" research engagement. Despite the emergence of NIHR imperatives and guidance through INVOLVE, researcher-driven needs from public engagement can be transactional, one-sided, and formulaic. The much called for"voices of women" in research, arguably, remain distant [1]. Cultivating effective methods of meaningful inclusion of women in research therefore remain an important area of research and engagement practice development priority. With the aim to contribute to the improvement of inclusion of people in women's health research, this article connects current engagement in women's health and research to the history from which the apparatus of engagement has developed. Using several historical examples including the Women's Movement and global examples of women's groups this article enriches the backdrop of women's health and research today. By cultivating a deeper historical understanding around the absence and exclusion of women in women's health and research, our understanding of the history of women's health stands to better inform our awareness of the context of women's health and therefore our approach to engagement overall. Perry and Mullins [1], £25 and a biscuit: Women's Health Research and Public Engagement in the UK. Res Involv Engagem. 2023 Dec 15;9(1):120. doi: 10.1186/s40900-023-00519-1.

Identifiers

PMID42661234
PMCPMC13523298

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.