ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026
Engaging adults with severe mental illness in research: considerations and practical recommendations for meaningful patient and public involvement.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2026. 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
Abstract
backgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) in mental health research is essential but presents unique challenges, particularly when engaging adults with severe mental illness (SMI). This report focusses on the process, benefits, and challenges of involving adults with lived experience of SMI as active partners within a five-year research programme aimed at co-producing a new evidence- and theory-based intervention to support smoking behaviour change following mental health inpatient care. It summarises our PPI strategy, the lived experience insight provided, and practical recommendations for facilitating meaningful involvement of people with SMI throughout the research process.
methodsWe reflect on our approach to PPI within the research programme. Involvement spanned the entire research programme, from intervention design to dissemination. The research team reflected on the PPI participants' experience via informal feedback, meeting notes, and reflective team discussions. These reflections informed the identification of practical considerations and recommendations.
resultsPPI was crucial to the research and had a powerful, meaningful impact, with group members playing a key role in shaping participant-facing materials and intervention resources. Success was supported by early planning, dedicated facilitation, sustained relationship-building, and clear communication. Challenges included balancing meaningful input with accessibility, accommodating individual needs and preferences, and supporting varying levels of engagement due to participants' ongoing mental health experience.
conclusionInvolving adults with SMI in research is both feasible and valuable, and requires careful planning, flexibility, and support. This report highlights the importance of relational approaches and tailored support to enable meaningful contributions, offering practical guidance for researchers developing inclusive PPI strategies in mental health trials involving complex populations.
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.