ReviewJournal of advanced nursing2026
Evolution of Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement in Health-Related Research: A Concept Analysis.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient Perspectives on Prostate Cancer Prehabilitation: A Qualitative Study Using the Behaviour Change Wheel to Investigate Barriers and Facilitators to Engagement.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- 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 · 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
- Patient and public perceptions of involvement and engagement in healthcare research: a descriptive exploratory qualitative study in Hong Kong.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Evolution of Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement in Health-Related Research: A Concept Analysis.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Review
- 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 · 2026Article
- Engaging patient and family advisory councils (PFACs) in patient safety in healthcare organisations: a rapid scoping review.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
- Involving community members in designing behavioural weight management programmes: a scoping review.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Advancing Equity in Breast Cancer Care Through Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterReview
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.