ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2025
Five years of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in the development and evaluation of the Pain-at-Work toolkit to support employees' self-management of chronic pain at work.
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. It is linked to trial NCT05838677 (Multicentre Pragmatic Cluster Randomised Controlled Feasibility Trial to Assess Potential Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness of the Pain at Work Toolkit in Employees With Chronic or Persistent Pain), which is not on this 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.
Multicentre Pragmatic Cluster Randomised Controlled Feasibility Trial to Assess Potential Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness of the Pain at Work Toolkit in Employees With Chronic or Persistent Pain
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Public and Patient Involvement and Engagement in Clinical Trials: A Multi-Perspective Mixed-Methods Evaluation of the ROWTATE Programme.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- "Shining a light on chronic pain": A qualitative study of stakeholder views towards chronic pain at work and the Pain-at-Work Toolkit.PloS one · 2026Article
- Patient and public involvement in musculoskeletal pain research: using mutual learning to improve research quality.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2026Review
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) is essential for the design, delivery and dissemination of high-quality, meaningful research. However, reporting of PPIE contributions is seldom transparent or consistent. We aimed to document and critically reflect on the process of embedding robust PPIE throughout every stage of the research cycle in the co-creation and evaluation of the Pain-at-Work (PAW) Toolkit, a digital resource to support working age adults with self-managing chronic pain at work.
methodsUsing the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2-SF) checklist we describe and reflect on PPIE input into four phases of the PAW Toolkit development and testing taking place over five years, all co-led by PPIE-partners, including: (1) Co-Creation: with stakeholder consultation (n = 27), surveys with employees (n = 274) and employers (n = 107), expert peer review (n = 40), (2) Prototype Evaluation: with end-user testing (n = 104), end-user interviews (n = 15), expert peer reviews (n = 15), (3) Review and Update: with a public concept mapping exercise (n = 20) and expert peer reviews (n = 15), (4) Feasibility Testing: with PPIE-partners (n = 2), PPIE-members (n = 5), PPIE-contributors (n = 10).
resultsPPIE was successfully embedded at every stage of the research cycle. Our PPIE-partners co-led activities to gather the views of diverse stakeholders (PPIE-contributors) such as healthcare professionals, employers, and people with lived experience of chronic pain. We outline 'how' PPIE took place at each phase, and 'who' was involved in each activity. We describe PPIE results in terms of the impact of PPIE on PAW Toolkit development (Phase 1-3) and the research process (Phase 1-4).
conclusionOur PPIE partnerships and shared decision-making led to the co-creation, update and evaluation of the PAW Toolkit, an intervention which is appropriate, meaningful and relevant to working-age adults living with chronic pain. We present components for successful PPIE, and map our Pain-at-Work PPIE to recommended components. Components for successful PPIE, challenges and mitigations are reflected upon. PPIE enhanced the 'real-world' value of our intervention and methodological rigour of the research processes. Our worked example of PPIE and transferable recommendations could be used to guide other researchers embarking on national or international health research. TRIAL REGISTRATION (PHASE 4): ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05838677; registered 01/05/2023 https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05838677 . INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1- https://doi.org/10.2196/51474 .
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.