ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026
Tensions in patient involvement and engagement in health research and development: a qualitative interview study with key actors.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient involvement and engagement (PIE) is increasingly recognised as essential for improving health research and service design and for supporting the transition toward person-centred healthcare systems. However, the implementation of PIE remains inconsistent across health research and development globally. The aim of this study was to examine how barriers and facilitators to PIE in health research and development are understood and negotiated by different key actors. This study adopted a qualitative design. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a diverse group of key actors, including patient representatives, healthcare professionals, health researchers, representatives from pharmaceutical and medical industry, and public authorities (n = 29). Participants were recruited through the European Patients' Academy on Therapeutic Innovation (EUPATI) Sweden and had prior experience of PIE in their respective roles. The data were analysed using qualitative content analysis, as described by Graneheim and Lundman. The findings revealed barriers and facilitators related to the following themes: Shifting culture, power and responsibility; Guidance through clear structures; Expectations of the patient representative role; Trust and communication; and Towards shared understanding. The different actors' understandings of these barriers and facilitators create tensions that need to be acknowledged and negotiated in order to drive PIE forward. We suggest that incorporating the ethical foundation for person-centred approach with narrative, partnership and shared responsibility trough documentation in PIE activities would offer a way forward, as many of the barriers and facilitators identified were related to how PIE was carried out in practice. Further studies are needed to examine how incorporation of Person-centred approach in PIE would be implemented and evaluated with the aim of strengthening collaboration and enabling more meaningful involvement.
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.