Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42698119›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026

Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) in methodological research: exploring challenges, tensions and learning from the perspectives of PPIE and researchers in the Realist Economic Evaluation Methods (REEM) study.

Andrew Fletcher, Violet Rook, Susan Mountain, Felicity Shenton, Linda Fenocchi, Meghan Bruce Kumar, Sonia Dalkin, Angela Bate, Rebecca Hunter

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

9 authors.

Andrew FletcherUniversity of Northumbria, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. andrewneilfletcher@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4111-2968
Violet Rook, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Susan Mountain, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Felicity ShentonNational Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), Applied Research Collaboration North East and North Cumbria, Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne & Wear NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Linda FenocchiGlasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Meghan Bruce KumarUniversity of Northumbria, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Sonia DalkinUniversity of Northumbria, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Angela BateUniversity of Northumbria, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Rebecca HunterUniversity of Northumbria, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR135102
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMethodological research is often abstract, heavily theoretical and jargon laden. Despite having significant implications for the users of health and social care services, it can be difficult to involve the public and patients in research that is oriented towards more academic 'ways of knowing'. This article combines Public and Patient Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) and university researcher perspectives on their experiences working on a study that aimed to develop a new evaluation approach.

methodsUsing a co-produced reflective case study design, four university researchers and three (representing a wider group of six) PPIE contributors reflected on their shared experiences of PPIE within the Realist Economic Evaluation Methods (REEM) methodological study. Reflections were gathered during a structured two-hour workshop, which identified three broad initial themes. These were explored in depth by academic/PPIE writing duos across two online follow-up meetings, producing collaborative written summaries. A fourth academic synthesised the summaries to ensure coherence and the final manuscript was examined and approved by the full team.

resultsThe challenges encountered during the study were organised into three broad themes: (1) Identifying appropriate PPIE contributors; (2) maintaining and sustaining engagement; and (3) determining when and how best to engage.

conclusionWe propose that PPIE in methodological health and social care research requires different considerations than PPIE in applied research, including actions to normalise uncertainty and be creative about modes of contribution as part of co-learning. We have articulated these as recommendations, with implications for funders/commissioners of research, university researchers and PPIE contributors alike.

Indexed as

Community engagementCo-productionHealth and social care researchMethodological developmentMethodological research participationMethodology researchPPIE

Identifiers

PMID42698119
PMCPMC13543379

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.