Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40665416›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2025

Distinguishing participants, patients and the public: implications of different institutional settings on engagement approaches.

Anne L Buffardi, William Lammons, Nira Shah, Dalya Marks

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Anne L BuffardiLondon Borough of Islington, London, UK. anne.buffardi@islington.gov.uk.
William LammonsDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) North Thames, London, UK.
Nira ShahDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) North Thames, London, UK.
Dalya MarksLondon Borough of Islington, London, UK.

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Advanced Local Authority Fellowship (ALAF) NIHR303550National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Determinants Research Collaboration (HDRC) Islington NIHR151399
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is an established history of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in academic and clinical research. As the National Institute for Health Research and Care (NIHR) expands its investment in research on and by local authorities (LAs), NIHR PPIE frameworks are increasingly being applied in this new context. This article examines if and how the relationship between the public varies across universities, the NHS and LA and what this means for PPIE.

methodsTo analyse differences in institutional structures, we reviewed organisational websites, comparing the purpose and responsibilities of the institution, funding sources, governance structures, ability to directly action research findings, the role of public collaborators and duration of this relationship. We then systematically analysed these differences against the six UK Standards for Public Involvement: inclusive opportunities, working together, support and learning, governance, communications and impact. We also held a group discussion with nine PPIE Research Advisory Panel members to sense check if and how they perceived differences across these three institutional contexts and to refine and identify additional hypotheses about what might need to be adapted for PPIE in a LA setting.

resultsThe three institutions generally fall along a continuum, with universities having the most bounded relationship with the public and LAs the most expansive and enduring. The NHS and LAs have statutory responsibilities to the public, who finance their services and whose rights are articulated in institutional constitutions. Reflective of the service delivery responsibilities of both institutions, they are able to directly implement research findings, whereas university research outputs predominantly aim to inform others' service design and delivery. Given these differences, our analysis suggests that the three standards on working together, governance and PPIE impact may require greater adaptation in LA settings. At the heart of the challenge is role clarification, since public contributors to research may also be council tenants, taxpayers and voters.

conclusionsPPIE in LA research offers new opportunities and challenges, requiring tailored guidance that accounts for the unique relationship between LAs and the public. We encourage PPIE contributors, coordinators and scholars across institutional settings to work together to fill this gap.

Indexed as

EngagementLocal authorityNHSPatientPublic involvementResidentUK Standards for Public InvolvementUniversity

Identifiers

PMID40665416
PMCPMC12265212

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.