ArticleBMJ open2026
Understanding research practices and methodological choices when applying the Person-Based Approach to health intervention development: A qualitative interview study.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study explores why researchers selected the Person-Based Approach (PBA) to intervention development for their studies and their perceptions of the strengths and limitations of using the approach in practice.
designThis is a qualitative interview study, which uses an Interpretive Description approach to thematically analyse data.
settingThe participants were based at academic institutions across the UK, Europe and North America.
participantsWe interviewed 16 health researchers at different academic career stages, including clinicians, psychologists and social scientists.
resultsThree main themes were chosen to characterise and describe the data:
conclusionsUsing the PBA gave researchers the confidence to adapt their research activities, particularly patient and public involvement and qualitative methods, to better reach target users. They selected the PBA not purely on instrumental grounds, but because it aligned with their professional values and commitment to user-centred practice. The PBA also facilitated the integration of multiple evidence sources and development frameworks. Understanding whether these diverse methodological configurations lead to successful outcomes will require evaluation approaches that can accommodate complexity and pluralism, alongside transparent reporting of the choices made.
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.