Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42703971›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2026

Involving People With Dementia in Research: Contributions, Barriers and Evaluation From a Meta-Synthesis and Qualitative Interview Study.

Jörg Meisser, Susanne de Wolf-Linder, Christina Ramsenthaler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

3 authors.

Jörg MeisserDepartment of Health Sciences, Institute of Nursing, ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-4798-7429
Susanne de Wolf-LinderDepartment of Health Sciences, Institute of Nursing, ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3421-2418
Christina RamsenthalerDepartment of Health Sciences, Institute of Nursing, ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9996-1818

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) can enhance the relevance, acceptability and quality of research; however, its meaningful implementation in dementia research remains insufficiently understood.

aim(1) To identify methodological procedures for involving people with dementia (PwD) across the research lifecycle, and (2) to explore how members of a dementia PPIE group experience collaboration, contribution, and evaluation of their involvement.

methodsThis mono-method, multi-strand qualitative study combined (1) a meta-synthesis of qualitative primary studies reporting explicit PPIE with PwD and (2) semi-structured interviews with members of a PPIE group. Both strands were analysed using qualitative thematic analysis. Findings were integrated through a crosswalk table and narrative synthesis.

resultsThe meta-synthesis (33 studies) identified sequential, interrelated methodological conditions for PPIE with PwD across four themes: (1) access and recruitment, through trusted organisations and existing networks; (2) facilitation and support, using adapted communication, flexible pacing, practical aids, and sustained researcher facilitation; (3) forms of involvement, from consultation to co-interviewing, co-analysis, co-authorship, and dissemination; and (4) evaluation of PPIE, which was inconsistently reported and rarely explicit about decision-making impact. Qualitative interviews with 11 PPIE group members generated four experiential themes: (1) group-related aspects (trust, appreciation, PwD representation), (2) structural conditions (organisation, preparation, continuity), (3) communication (clarity, accessibility, feedback), and (4) the handling and impact of contributions. Across strands, findings demonstrated strong convergence: methodological practices identified in the meta-synthesis directly aligned with conditions under which participants experienced involvement as meaningful. Conversely, gaps in reporting and evaluation identified in the literature reflected participants' concerns about limited visibility of impact.

conclusionsEffective PPIE with PwD requires sustained investment in relationship-building, structured processes, accessible communication and continuous feedback to enable meaningful and inclusive collaboration. By integrating meta-synthesis and experiential data, this study identified psychological safety, relational continuity and the visibility of influence as key in shaping meaningful involvement across research contexts. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Although people with dementia were not involved as research partners in study conception and design, the study sought to examine and incorporate lived-experience perspectives through the included literature, qualitative interviews and participant validation workshop. This limitation is acknowledged and should be addressed through earlier involvement in future research.

Indexed as

DementiaPatient ParticipationCooperative BehaviorHumansInterviews as TopicQualitative Researchdementiaevaluationfacilitators and barrierspatient and public involvement and engagementqualitative interviewsqualitative meta‐synthesis

Identifiers

PMID42703971
PMCPMC13548409

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.