ArticleNursing in critical care2026
Evaluating Meaningful Patient and Public Involvement in Intensive Care Research-A PEIRS-22 Survey.
Article in Nursing in critical care, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly recommended in health research to enhance relevance, quality and implementation of findings. In intensive care research, involving patients, family members and healthcare professionals may help ensure that research addresses outcomes that are meaningful to those affected by critical illness.
aimThis study aimed to assess the level of meaningful PPI engagement during the development of a core outcome set (COS) for general intensive care unit (ICU) patients in Denmark. STUDY
designA cross-sectional survey using the Danish version of the Patient Engagement in Research Scale (PEIRS-22) was conducted between December 2024 and January 2025. We invited all members (patients, family, healthcare professionals and researchers) of five research panels, established in 2021 to support COS development across Danish university hospitals (N = 46). PEIRS-22 total scores range from 1 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater meaningful engagement (scores ≥ 70.1 were considered meaningful). Descriptive statistics, item-level analyses and non-parametric comparisons between participant roles were performed.
resultsThirty-seven of 46 participants responded (80.4%): 27.0% (n = 10) were patients/family, 46.0% (n = 17) healthcare professionals and 27.0% (n = 10) researchers. The median PEIRS-22 total score was 78 (IQR 68-93), with 72.0% (n = 27) scoring ≥ 70.1. Engagement differed statistically significant by role (p = 0.004), with researchers reporting the highest scores (median 97), followed by patients/family (89), while healthcare professionals reported lower scores (74).
conclusionPPI in COS development for general ICU patients was perceived as meaningful overall. However, differences across stakeholder groups and lower achievement of advanced engagement elements suggest opportunities to strengthen shared decision-making, role clarity and perceived relevance, particularly among healthcare professionals. Meaningful involvement of patients, families and clinicians may support the development of more patient-centred intensive care research and outcomes that better reflect the priorities of those affected by critical illness. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Meaningful PPI can help ensure that intensive care research reflects the priorities of patients and families. Clear roles, clinical relevance, and opportunities to influence decisions may strengthen engagement, particularly among healthcare professionals. Critical care nurses may play an important role in facilitating collaboration between patients, families, clinicians, and researchers.
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.