Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41345899›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2025

Patient and public involvement and engagement in methodology research: process, experiences, and recommendations from the SPIRIT- and CONSORT-Surrogate project.

Anthony Muchai Manyara, Derek Stewart, Sarah Markham, Andrew Worrall, Ray Harris, Philippa Davies, Christopher J Weir, Amber E Young, Jane Blazeby, Nancy J Butcher and 9 more

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

19 authors.

Anthony Muchai ManyaraMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. Anthony.Manyara@bristol.ac.uk.
Derek StewartPatient and Public Involvement Partner, Nottingham, UK.
Sarah MarkhamDepartment of Biostatistics & Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London, UK.
Andrew WorrallPatient and Public Involvement partner, Staffordshire, UK.
Ray HarrisPatient and Public Involvement partner, London, UK.
Philippa DaviesPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Christopher J WeirEdinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Amber E YoungPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Jane BlazebyPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Nancy J ButcherChild Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Canada.
Sylwia BujkiewiczBiostatistics Research Group, Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
An-Wen ChanDepartment of Medicine, Women's College Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Dalia DawoudFaculty of Pharmacy, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Martin OffringaChild Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Canada.
Mario OuwensAstraZeneca, Mölndal, Sweden.
Gary S CollinsDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Joseph S RossDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.
Rod S TaylorMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Oriana CianiCentre for Research on Health and Social Care Management, SDA Bocconi School of Management, Milan, Italy.

Funding

Cancer Research UK C49297/A27294Medical Research Council MR/V038400/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile there are increasing calls for Public and Patient Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) in methodology research, including the development of reporting guidelines, practices continue to emerge. This paper reports on the process, experiences, reflections, and recommendations of both the PPIE partners and other researchers participating in the development of (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-Surrogate reporting guidelines.

methodsDevelopment of the SPIRIT- and CONSORT-Surrogate guidelines involved four phases: (1) literature reviews; (2) an e-Delphi survey; (3) a consensus meeting, and (4) knowledge translation. PPIE was integrated in Phases 2, 3 and 4. An encompassing budgeted PPIE strategy detailing involvement in all project phases was prepared and implemented by researchers and PPIE partners. Implementation included a learning workshop (attended by 19 PPIE partners) to build PPIE partners’ capacity and confidence to participate in the e-Delphi survey (Phase 2) and the invitation of four PPIE partners to the consensus meeting (Phase 3). Experiences and reflections of PPIE in the project, based on feedback surveys from PPIE partners participating in the project and reflective notes from meetings, were used to formulate recommendations.

resultsIn total, 19 PPIE partners took part in the e-Delphi survey (Phase 2), four joined the consensus meeting (Phase 3), and consequently co-authored the guidelines and contributed to the development of an educational animation video (Phase 4). Partners felt that facilitators for involvement in Phase 2 included a learning workshop, financial compensation, support during e-Delphi survey participation (such as a glossary and help texts) and for Phase 3, the main facilitator was allowing partners to contribute first during the consensus meeting. The PPIE partners who joined the consensus meeting (Phase 3) presented the patient perspective; reminded researchers of why the project was important; helped with clarification of issues; corrected grammar; suggested strategies to disseminate and implement the extensions; and created humour. Reflecting on the involvement, both the PPIE partners and researchers felt it was valuable to the project.

conclusionsBased on the experiences, we make six recommendations for integrating PPIE in projects to develop reporting guidelines: involve early; involve with a plan and layered approach; involve meaningfully in a genuine way; involve with support and in safe spaces; involve with reflection and feedback; and involve with a budget to compensate for time and effort.

Indexed as

Methodology researchPatient and public involvementPPIEReporting guidelines

Identifiers

PMID41345899
PMCPMC12720433

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.