ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2024
Patient and public involvement in the design of an international clinical trial: real world experience.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Why patient organizations are important to improve care for people with Lynch syndrome.Familial cancer · 2026Article
- Embedding public and patient involvement in childhood stuttering research: lessons learned from engaging children and families in Saudi Arabia.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Screening failure in systemic sclerosis randomized trials: reporting, rates, causes and trends over time.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2026Article
- PRE-POET: a qualitative interview-based study to explore patient-relevant factors in the context of prostate biopsy.BMC urology · 2025Article
- Patient Advisory Committee Engagement in a Precision Medicine-Focused Public Oncology Conference: Case Report of Lessons Learned.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe value of patient and public involvement (PPI) during the earliest stages of clinical trial development, and prior to the award of substantive funding, is widely recognised. However, it is often under-resourced and PPI processes during this phase are rarely reported in detail. Having benefitted from seed funding to develop an international clinical trial proposal, we sought to describe and appraise PPI activities and processes that support pre-award co-development.
methodsA 12-month "accelerator" award facilitated development of a substantive funding application to deliver the Rheumatoid Arthritis Prevention PlatfORm Trial (RAPPORT), conceived to prioritise preventative interventions for people at risk of RA. PPI partners, including individuals at risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), RA patients, relatives and members of the public, provided feedback on key trial design issues through online meetings, a feedback form and emails. PPI processes employed during the one-year accelerator project were thereafter evaluated by PPI partners using an anonymous online feedback form with reference to National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) UK standards for public involvement in research.
resultsSixteen out of the 25-strong PPI partner panel completed an online feedback form (64%). Respondents perceived PPI processes positively in relation to all NIHR standard domains. Several key facilitators and challenges were identified, including the need for adequate PPI funding during pre-award phases of research, strategies for creating an inclusive environment, flexibility around levels of involvement, and challenges in achieving representatively diverse participation, and the importance of communicating transparent processes for role-assignment and time-reimbursement.
conclusionsIn general, RAPPORT was considered an example of PPI well done, and in line with UK standards for public involvement in research. Facilitators and challenges of relevance for the development of future translational and clinical trial funding applications are highlighted.
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.