Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42717624›Full record

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

Equitable Patient and Public Involvement Strategies for Scaling Health and Social Care Interventions: A Consensus Study Inspired by Delphi Methods.

Roberta de Carvalho Corôa, Odilon Quentin Assan, Ali Ben Charif, Amédé Gogovor, Kathy Kastner, Robert K D McLean, Andrew Milat, France Légaré, The RePOS Network

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. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Equitable Patient and Public Involvement Strategies for Scaling Health and Social Care Interventions: A Consensus Study Inspired by Delphi Methods.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
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.

Roberta de Carvalho CorôaFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4778-1890
Odilon Quentin AssanVITAM - Centre de recherche en santé durable, Centre intégré universitaire de santé et services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale, Quebec, Canada.
Ali Ben CharifCubecXpert, Quebec, Canada.
Amédé GogovorFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5988-0442
Kathy KastnerBest Endings, Toronto, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2242-4560
Robert K D McLeanInternational Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.
Andrew MilatSchool of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
France LégaréFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2296-6696
The RePOS NetworkNew South Wales Agency for Clinical Innovation, St. Leonards, Australia.

Funding

CIHR #PAO-169411
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) is recognized as essential for scaling interventions in health and social services, but there are few guidelines to support it. We sought consensus on strategies for involving patients and the public in scaling in an equitable and meaningful way.

methodsWe conducted a participatory consensus study inspired by Delphi techniques. We used as a starting point 23 PPI strategies for scaling (on the involvement continuum, from providing information to full co-production) as identified in a 2024 scoping review. First, we established a steering committee, intended to include patient or public representatives, to validate the relevance of the 23 strategies for inclusion in an online survey consensus process to confirm their applicability to PPI. Second, researchers, health professionals, policymakers, and patient or public representatives completed the online survey to assess the validated strategies against four evaluation criteria: equity, comprehensiveness, adaptability and significance. We used the DELPHISTAR checklist to report results and the GRIPP2 framework to report PPI in the study.

findingsAll 23 PPI strategies were found relevant by the steering committee and proceeded to the 2-round consensus process to evaluate 92 items (23 strategies x 4 criteria). By April, 2025, 14 participants had completed the first round and nine had also completed the second. Participants included patient and public representatives (n = 5), researchers (n = 6), health professionals (n = 3) and policymakers (n = 2) mostly based in Canada (n = 10). Of 23 PPI strategies assessed, 19 achieved consensus on at least one of the four criteria. Three strategies (Service users' needs assessment, Organizational advisory groups and Co-leadership in quality and safety improvement) achieved consensus across all criteria, while four strategies did not reach consensus on any. Co-leadership in quality and safety improvement (88.3%), Co-leadership in policymaking (87.3%) and Service users' needs assessment (87.3%) achieved the highest global scores. Consensus was reached on 44/92 items, most frequently for equity. These strategies were primarily situated in the organization of health and social care and the co-production level of the involvement continuum.

conclusionsThe strategies prioritized by stakeholders were not necessarily the ones most frequently discussed in the literature. We recommend systematically involving patient and public representatives throughout scaling, including when choosing PPI strategies. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A patient instructor was involved in the steering committee, sharing decisions on study design, data collection instruments and dissemination of findings. Patient and public representatives also took part in the consensus process, and their feedback was considered equal to that of the other experts.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationConsensusPatient ParticipationSocial WorkDelphi TechniqueHumansSurveys and Questionnairesco‐constructionhealth and social servicesimplementation scienceparticipatory researchpatient and public engagementscalabilityscaling science

Identifiers

PMID42717624
PMCPMC13559179

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.