ArticlePloS one2025
Impacts of patient advisory councils on recovery for sepsis survivors: a case study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionSepsis is a life-threatening condition with significant long-term impacts for survivors and their families. The known benefits of patient engagement have led to increased efforts globally to involve survivors in sepsis research. This study aimed to characterize the experiences of sepsis survivors and their families in patient advisory councils (PACs) for two Canadian sepsis research networks (Action on Sepsis and Sepsis Canada) and explore how PAC involvement supports long-term recovery.
methodsThis mixed-methods cross-sectional study consisted of a structured survey, ten interviews, and one focus group discussion. All current members of the Sepsis Canada and Action on Sepsis PACs (n = 29) were invited to participate. The results of the survey were analyzed descriptively and used to inform the development of the semi-structured interview guide. Qualitative data were analyzed using a thematic approach.
resultsOverall, 16 PAC members participated. The majority of participants were women and over 40 years old. Survey scores showed that most participants felt meaningfully engaged, while the qualitative findings highlighted how PACs supported recovery and fostered community connections between survivors, families, and researchers. Major themes included sepsis experience, recovery journey, characteristics of PACs, characteristics of PAC participation, and impacts of PAC involvement.
conclusionOur findings demonstrate that PACs provide critical benefits that extend beyond feeling valued or appreciated for contributing to a specific project. These findings highlight the value of patient-oriented research in shaping evidence-based practices and policies and emphasize the need for trauma-informed approaches and improved post-sepsis care pathways to enhance recovery outcomes.
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.