ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2025
Evaluation of the impact of patient and public involvement on doctoral students in palliative dementia care research.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Extraordinary abilities, creativity, and love, in the path of dementia: a perspective article on the Walking the Talk for Dementia 2025 initiative.Frontiers in dementia · 2026Article
- An international cross-sectional study of dementia researchers' own perspectives on patient and public involvement.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient and Public Involvement (PPI) has moral and practical importance by empowering stakeholders to influence research. Research by doctoral students is a major component of accepted research and research training, yet the literature on meaningful PPI in this area is limited. We aimed to provide insights into the impact of PPI in doctoral research and education, and integrate the findings with identified published evidence to develop the Empowering Better End of Life Dementia Care (EMBED-Care) Guideline for Reporting and Evaluating PPI in doctoral research for future evaluations.
methodsDocumentary analysis was undertaken of the PPI panel meeting notes and written reflections by doctoral students from the five doctoral projects in the EMBED-Care programme. The data extracted were analysed using a deductive thematic approach guided by Staley's INVOLVE framework comprising nine themes (research agenda, design and delivery, ethics, impact on public involved, researchers, participants, wider community, community organisations, wider change). To compare and interpret the findings, a literature review in PUBMED identified published evidence on PPI in doctoral research with final data integration to construct the guideline.
resultsThere was at least one impact of PPI identified in each of the nine respective themes with the most common being 'impact on research design and delivery'. The identified impacts were universally described as positive for the doctoral students, their projects, PPI members and the wider community. Published studies (n = 21) reporting PPI in doctoral research echoed findings of positive benefits, but the methods to utilise PPI and the reporting on outcomes were inconsistent. The EMBED-Care Guideline for Reporting and Evaluating the Impact of PPI on doctoral research was constructed to standardise PPI reports and information collected, and reflection on the impact and outcomes, to facilitate evaluation of impact in future research.
conclusionsPPI primarily benefited research design and delivery, but had a variety of social benefits to the researchers, public members, study participants and wider communities. The findings demonstrate the vital role of PPI in the academic development of doctoral students to enhance skills and expertise, and research design and delivery.
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.