ArticleTrials2021
Patient and public involvement in numerical aspects of trials (PoINT): exploring patient and public partners experiences and identifying stakeholder priorities.
Article in Trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Towards socially robust policy modelling: scoping review of public involvement in computational policy modelling.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- Including patient and public contributors on clinical trial Independent Data Monitoring Committees (IDMCs).Trials · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- From Serendipity to Precision: Integrating AI, Multi-Omics, and Human-Specific Models for Personalized Neuropsychiatric Care.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Mapping the evidence for patient and public involvement and engagement in statistical methodology research: A scoping review protocol.PloS one · 2025Article
- Interpretation of statistical findings in randomised trials: a survey of statisticians using thematic analysis of open-ended questions.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Patient and public involvement and engagement in the development of innovative patient-centric early phase dose-finding trial designs.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- "The power imbalance was blown out the window": developing and implementing creative workshops to enhance communication of statistics in patient and public involvement in clinical trials.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Public involvement in chronic respiratory diseases research: A qualitative study of patients', carers' and citizens' perspectives.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Evaluating participant experiences of Community Panels to scrutinise policy modelling for health inequalities: the SIPHER Consortium.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Incorporation of patient and public involvement in statistical methodology research: a survey assessing current practices and attitudes of researchers.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- Starting a conversation about estimands with public partners involved in clinical trials: a co-developed tool.Trials · 2023Article
- Involving patients and the public In sTatistIcal Analysis pLans (INITIAL): A delphi survey.PloS one · 2023Article
- Review
- Article
- Patient-reported outcomes and target effect sizes in pragmatic randomized trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cross-sectional analysis.PLoS medicine · 2022Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsPatient and public involvement is increasingly common in trials, but its quality remains variable in a lot of settings. Many key decisions in trials involve numbers, but patients are rarely involved in those discussions. We aimed to understand patient and public partners' experiences and opinions regarding their involvement in numerical aspects of research and discuss and identify priorities, according to multiple stakeholders, around the most important numerical aspects in trials to involve patients and the public in.
methodsThe study had two stages: (1) online focus groups with patient and public partners recruited via online platforms and analysed using inductive thematic analysis and (2) online priority setting meeting with UK- and Ireland-based stakeholders and following James Lind Alliance methodology. Pre-selected numerical aspects were introduced prior to the meeting and discussed and prioritised based on a voting system.
resultsIn stage 1, we held two focus groups with patient and public partners (n = 9). We identified four themes in the analysis: "Determinants of PPI in numerical aspects", "Identity and roles", "Impact of involving patients and the public in numerical aspects". Patient and public partners believed being involved in numerical aspects of research is important and should be facilitated, but communication about these aspects needs to be clearer. An environment and relationship with researchers that facilitates that will include time for discussion, support to improve knowledge and confidence, clear language and definitions and trust. Patient and public partners perceive their role as bringing an outsider perspective and were mainly interested in involvement in assumptions and dissemination of quantitative research. They believed this can lead to more transparency and improve their experience by making involvement more meaningful. In stage 2, we identified twelve numerical aspects of trials to be prioritised. We held a priority setting meeting with 14 stakeholders, which led to the selection of three priority numerical aspects in patient and public involvement: target differences, interpretation of results and cost-effectiveness. Participants felt all aspects should be considered for involvement and their communication needs to ensure a shared level of understanding to avoid power imbalances.
conclusionsOur work shows the importance of involving patient and public partners in numerical aspects of trials by assessing their experiences and motivations for the first time and discussing and prioritising which numerical aspects of trials are the most important for patients and the public to contribute to. Our research provides a platform for future efforts to improve patient and public involvement in trials and a prioritised set of future research foci.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.