Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39825448›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2025

Exploring the purpose and stages of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in audiology research: a case study approach.

Helen Pryce, Nisha Dhanda, Jean Straus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Implementation of My Hearing PREM Into Three UK Audiology Services: A Pluralist Approach to Planning, Design and Evaluation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Refinement and Validation of a New Patient-Reported Experience Measure for Hearing Loss (My Hearing PREM).Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Helen PryceCollege of Health and Life Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, UK. h.pryce-cazalet@aston.ac.uk.
Nisha DhandaCollege of Health and Life Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Jean StrausPatient Researcher and PPI Lead, College of Health and Life Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research HSDR 131597
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) has become an integral component of contemporary audiology research. It aims to capture diverse views and experiences, essential for evaluating the long-term impact of technological advancements and care models on individuals. Traditional inclusion methods, such as focus groups, may exclude individuals with additional needs or communication difficulties, necessitating the development of more inclusive approaches.

methodsThis study explores PPIE's purpose and stages in two recent audiology studies, adhering to the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2) criteria. The authors describe their attempts to optimise participation by PPIE volunteers in two studies. The methods sought to engage volunteer PPIE contributors who might otherwise have not known about or contributed views of research methods. Specifically, our novel methods for engagement meant reaching out deliberately to marginalised communities and using individual, relationship building approaches, rather than relying on previously described focus group style meetings. Flexible engagement methods were developed to include marginalised communities with lower levels of research engagement. In the first study, the Hearing Loss and Patient Reported Experience Study (HeLP) developed the first Patient-Reported Experience Measure (PREM) in audiology. The study involved creating a conceptual framework, developing a prototype questionnaire, and validating it through test-retest procedures. The second study conducted an ethnographic analysis of adults with dementia and hearing loss in care homes, employing environmental audits, ethnographic observations, and semi-structured interviews.

resultsThe HeLP study successfully developed a culturally meaningful and accessible PREM, capturing the experiences of individuals with hearing loss, including those from South Asian communities. PPIE contributors highlighted the need for non-judgmental, empathetic approaches and culturally sensitive language. The PPIE component of the ethnographic study emphasises the importance of creating appropriate communication environments and implementing tailored inclusion strategies to address barriers faced by PPIE contributors in their participation.

conclusionsThe findings stress the necessity of inclusive PPIE methods in audiology research. Building meaningful relationships with PPIE contributors ensures a wide range of perspectives, informing research design and conduct. The study highlights the challenges of traditional focus groups and the benefits of flexible, personalised engagement methods. By prioritising relationship building and nuanced conversations, researchers can develop interventions that better align with users' needs, preferences, and lifestyles. This approach contributes to the growing body of literature advocating for more inclusive and representative PPIE practices in health research, ultimately enhancing the relevance and impact of audiology studies.

Indexed as

AudiologyHealth services researchHearingPatient and family engagementPatient involvementPatient participation

Identifiers

PMID39825448
PMCPMC11740400

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.