ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2021
Co-designing new tools for collecting, analysing and presenting patient experience data in NHS services: working in partnership with patients and carers.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prehabilitation for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: intervention development using the Medical Research Council Framework.Journal of ISAKOS : joint disorders & orthopaedic sports medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Using consumer engagement strategies to improve healthcare safety for young people: An exploration of the relevance and suitability of current approaches.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Pooled it
- Process Evaluation of Interdisciplinary Experiences During the Development of a Serious Game About Radiotherapy for Children: Qualitative Interview Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Combining Listening Cafés and a Games-Based Co-Design Approach for Public Involvement With Underserved Communities: A Methodology and Lessons Learned From Health Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Engaging Patients in Learning Health Systems Research Using Human Centered Design: A Scoping Review.Learning health systems · 2026Article
- Cocreating the Visualization of Digital Mobility Outcomes: Delphi-Type Process With Patients.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Development of a User-Centred Chronic Care Model for Patients With Heart Failure in a Limited-Resource Setting: A Codesign Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Realizing the potential of social determinants data in EHR systems: A scoping review of approaches for screening, linkage, extraction, analysis, and interventions.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Systematic review of co-design in digital health for COVID-19 research.Universal access in the information society · 2022Review
- Building from Patient Experiences to Deliver Patient-Focused Healthcare Systems in Collaboration with Patients: A Call to Action.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2022Article
- Co-designing new tools for collecting, analysing and presenting patient experience data in NHS services: working in partnership with patients and carers.Research involvement and engagement · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe way we collect and use patient experience data is vital to optimise the quality and safety of health services. Yet, some patients and carers do not give feedback because of the limited ways data is collected, analysed and presented. In this study, we worked together with researchers, staff, patient and carer participants, and patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) contributors, to co-design new tools for the collection and use of patient experience data in multiple health settings. This paper outlines how the range of PPIE and research activities enabled the co-design of new tools to collect patient experience data.
methodsEight public contributors represented a range of relevant patient and carer experiences in specialist services with varied levels of PPIE experience, and eleven members of Patient and Participation Groups (PPGs) from two general practices formed our PPIE group at the start of the study. Slide sets were used to trigger co-design discussions with staff, patient and carer research participants, and PPIE contributors. Feedback from PPIE contributors alongside verbatim quotes from staff, patient and carer research participants is presented in relation to the themes from the research data.
resultsPPIE insights from four themes: capturing experience data; adopting digital or non-digital tools; ensuring privacy and confidentiality; and co-design of a suite of new tools with guidance, informed joint decisions on the shaping of the tools and how these were implemented. Our PPIE contributors took different roles during co-design and testing of the new tools, which supported co-production of the study.
conclusionsOur experiences of developing multiple components of PPIE work for this complex study demonstrates the importance of tailoring PPIE to suit different settings, and to maximise individual strengths and capacity. Our study shows the value of bringing diverse experiences together, putting patients and carers at the heart of improving NHS services, and a shared approach to managing involvement in co-design, with the effects shown through the research process, outcomes and the partnership. We reflect on how we worked together to create a supportive environment when unforeseen challenges emerged (such as, sudden bereavement).
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.