ReviewResearch involvement and engagement2025
How are patient partners involved in health service research? A scoping review of reviews.
Review 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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Disrupting power hierarchies: applying a trauma- informed, intersectional, reflexive engagement strategy.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Reducing tokenism in patient and public involvement by integrating the Gothenburg person-centred care framework, relational bridges and impact log - a co-produced position paper.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Reflections on and recommendations from the OCEANIC study CYP and parent advisory group: a Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement case study.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Developing a culturally relevant bereavement needs assessment tool (CANCOPE-PI) for caregivers of children with cancer in India: a participatory research approach.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Supporting researchers to involve patient partners in health service research: developing and assessing the feasibility and acceptability of a co-produced training programme for researchers.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Operationalizing Trauma-Informed Principles to Build Safe, Inclusive, and Equitable Patient Partnerships in Pediatric Pain Research.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- Co-Designing an Inclusive Stakeholder Engagement Strategy for Rehabilitation Technology Training Using the I-STEM Model.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncluding patients and next of kin as partners in research can help promote the development and dissemination of results that are inclusive, usable and relevant to health service settings. However, the impact of such involvement remains largely anecdotal, necessitating research to identify methods for achieving meaningful involvement.
objectivesThe aim was to examine how patient partners are involved in research across health service settings by addressing three objectives: (1) How are patient partners involved in the research process? (2) What is the impact of involving patient partners in research? (3) What defines effective patient partner involvement in research?
methodsWe conducted a scoping review by searching five databases (Embase, Scopus, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO) and grey literature. Published reviews within health service settings examining patient partner involvement were included. Protocol papers and reviews on patient involvement in treatment and care were excluded. The review adhered to Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Checklist.
resultsA total of 124 reviews were included. Most reviews have been published after 2014, primarily from the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States of America. Patient partners were involved with consultation and collaboration approaches in different stages of the research process, including identifying and prioritising (n = 49), designing (n = 57), managing (n = 40), undertaking (n = 53) and disseminating (n = 51) and less in commissioning (n = 11), implementing (n = 6) and evaluating impact (n = 17). Impact reporting varied, with few reviews (n = 11) explicitly defining ‘impact’ and its related concepts. Sixteen key enablers for effective patient partner involvement were identified. The most reported enablers included partnerships built on trust and inclusive communication (n = 56), training and support for patient partners (n = 53), flexibility (n = 48) and adequate resources (n = 45).
conclusionA significant gap exists in defining and measuring patient partner involvement. Adequate resources and training are essential for furthering trust-based, inclusive partnerships between researchers and patient partners. Future research should prioritise improving impact assessment, addressing power imbalances and refining best practices to enhance effective involvement. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two authors contributed with lived experience as patients and next of kin. Four patient partners were consulted about the results, one of whom coauthored this scoping review.
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.