Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40817700›Full record

ReviewJournal of advanced nursing2026

Evolution of Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement in Health-Related Research: A Concept Analysis.

Wenze Lu, Yan Li, Catherine Evans, David Currow, Jonathan Bayuo, Tingyu Zheng, Zhihui Lu, Mengqi Li, Julie Wray, Janelle Yorke

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of advanced nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Evolving Roles for Patients as Partners in a National Kidney Health Research Network: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Evaluating Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement Activity Within the 3DPiPPIn Trial: A Qualitative Exploration of Contributors' Perspectives on Their Impact.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

10 authors.

Wenze LuSchool of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0520-1827
Yan LiSchool of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China.
Catherine EvansFaculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.
David CurrowFlinders Ageing Alliance, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia.
Jonathan BayuoSchool of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China.
Tingyu ZhengSchool of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China.
Zhihui LuSchool of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China.
Mengqi LiSchool of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China.
Julie WraySchool of Nursing, Midwifery, Social Work and Social Sciences, University of Salford, Salford, UK.
Janelle YorkeSchool of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1344-5944

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo clarify the definition and evolution of Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) and identify its attributes, antecedents, and consequences in health-related research.

designThis study follows Rodgers' evolutionary concept analysis with a seven-step framework.

methodsDatasets were searched using terms related to PPIE and key categories (i.e., attributes, antecedents, and consequences). Data were sourced from CINAHL, PsycInfo, Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science covering publications from inception to October 31, 2024. Document titles, abstracts, and keywords were manually screened to identify relevant studies for full-text review.

resultsA total of 1751 documents were screened, resulting in 38 eligible studies included in the final analysis. PPIE has evolved from a narrow focus on patient inclusion and participation, where patients had minimal influence on research and researchers resisted sharing control of research, to a collaborative model emphasising sustained partnerships, shared contributions, equitable power distribution, and active involvement across research stages. This shift has been driven by research innovation, a growing emphasis on healthcare equity and patient-centred care, technological advances, and stakeholder advocacy (e.g., patients, funders, ethics committees). While PPIE enhances research relevance and impact, barriers, such as resource constraints, power imbalances, patient limited research capabilities and increased researcher workload persist. Facilitators, such as training programmes, standardised guidelines, flexible arrangements and transparent communication can enable meaningful partnerships.

conclusionThe concept of PPIE is evolving toward greater clarity and consistency in research, positioning patients and the public as active, essential contributors rather than passive participants. Barriers and facilitators were identified to inform its utilisation in research. IMPACT: This study clarifies the conceptual ambiguities of PPIE, informs theory development, and provides actionable insights. Healthcare and nursing researchers can draw on its findings to utilise PPIE to enhance collaborative and inclusive research practices that align with the needs of patients and the public. REPORTING

methodThis study adheres to the PRISMA (2020) reporting guidelines for systematic reviews. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: One of our co-authors is a patient with lived experience of cancer, who contributed valuable comments and suggestions to enhance this paper.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchCommunity ParticipationPatient ParticipationConcept FormationHumansconceptual models of nursingpatient advocacypatient participationpatient perspectivesPPIE

Identifiers

PMID40817700
PMCPMC13069254

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.