Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41998729›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026

A critical reflective analysis of patient and public involvement in a programme of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction research.

Faye Forsyth, Peter Hartley, Jonathan Mant, Scott Rowbotham, John Sharpley, Alison Wood, Christi Deaton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Faye ForsythPACE Section (Perioperative, Acute, Critical Care and Emergency Medicine), Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. fc349@cam.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2107-3690
Peter HartleyClinical Academic Physiotherapist, Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health & Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1033-5897
Jonathan MantPrimary Care Research, Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health & Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9531-0268
Scott RowbothamDepartment of Physiotherapy, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust, King's Lynn, UK.
John SharpleyPatient with Lived Experience of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Alison WoodThe Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute, University of Cambridge, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Worts Causeway, Cambridge, CB1 8RN, UK.
Christi DeatonPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health & Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3209-0752

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere are very few reports of patient and public involvement (PPI) initiatives in cardiovascular disease research and even fewer in heart failure, the eventual end point of many cardiovascular conditions. This report describes and critically appraises a PPI endeavor conducted during a programme of work focused on designing a multi-component diet and exercise intervention for people with Heart Failure with preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF).

methodsThis is a retrospective analysis and critical reflection of field notes and formal communication documents (produced during PPI meetings, n = 3) and transcripts (produced during workshops, n = 3) collected throughout the HFpEF research programme (PRESERVE-HFpEF).

resultsPPI had a substantial effect on this project both in terms of the content of the intervention and on the researchers' perceptions and skills in conducting meaningful PPI. For example, the dietary interventions envisioned within the intervention (caloric restriction, low carbohydrate and high protein), which were based on a meta-analysis of effects we (the authors) performed, were not deemed to be appealing nor feasible by PPI contributors. Many of the researcher related learning points we identified during the analysis, for example practical arrangements that maximize participation, allowing for more open dialogue and being mindful of scientific biases, were not obvious until they were subjected to an interrogative 'critical' process.

conclusionsTo build a foundation of good practice and evidence of the potential impact of PPI in cardiovascular disease research, we need further descriptions of the involvement process. This reflection is one of very few reports describing how PPI was enacted in heart failure research and what the impacts were. We hope that it will provide other researchers with some insight into how (or how not to) approach and deliver PPI in their research journey. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction were involved throughout the lifespan of this project. They participated in the PPI meetings and workshops where the direction of the research was discussed and their opinions and expertise were sought, initially through consultation type methods and later via consultation with co-production overtones. One member (JS) contributed to data analysis and interpretation; and provided critical feedback on emerging ideas and drafts of this report.

Identifiers

PMID41998729
PMCPMC13217720

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.