Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42540195›Full record

ArticleEULAR rheumatology open2026

"I am struggling to find an explicit task"-a midterm evaluation of patient research partner involvement in HIPPOCRATES translational research.

Maarten de Wit, Oliver FitzGerald, Anne Barton, Heidi Bertheussen, Laura C Coates, Owen Davies, Christine Huppertz, David Trigos, Michaela Köhm, Sina Mackay and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EULAR rheumatology open, 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

16 authors.

Maarten de WitEULAR Patient Research Partner, Zaltbommel, the Netherlands.
Oliver FitzGeraldUniversity College Dublin, School of Medicine, Conway Institute for Biomolecular Research, Dublin, Ireland.
Anne BartonCentre for Musculoskeletal Research (CfMR), University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Heidi BertheussenGRAPPA Patient Research Partner, Oslo, Norway.
Laura C CoatesNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Owen DaviesUCB Pharma, Slough, UK.
Christine HuppertzNovartis Biomedical Research, Basel, Switzerland.
David TrigosEUROPSO Patient Research Partner, Madrid, Spain.
Michaela KöhmDepartment of Rheumatology, Fraunhofer Institute for Translational Medicine and Pharmacology ITMP, Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Sina MackayFraunhofer Institute for Intelligent Analysis and Information Systems IAIS and Fraunhofer Centre of Excellence Immune Mediated Diseases CIMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany.
Denis O SullivanGRAPPA Patient Research Partner, Dublin, Ireland.
Stefan SiebertUniversity of Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Wendy WagenaarGRAPPA Patient Research Partner, Deurne, Netherlands.
Stephen R PenningtonUCD Conway Institute, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Diana RodriguesEULAR European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, Zürich, Switzerland.
Katie I GallacherSchool of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: The HIPPOCRATES project is a 5-year, international research partnership dedicated to studying and treating psoriatic disease. Integrating Patient Research Partners (PRPs) into large scientific groups, particularly those heavily focused on preclinical or laboratory-based science, is challenging. This paper details a midterm evaluation of how effectively PRPs have been engaged in the HIPPOCRATES project. Methods: Our evaluation used a mixed-method approach comprising 7 dedicated reflective PRP meetings, 2 midterm surveys among PRPs and researchers, a modified World Café discussion, and 5 structured dialogue meetings. We used descriptive statistics and pragmatic constant comparative analysis. Results: Substantial PRP input occurred early during the project's presubmission phase, which resulted in a formal strategy for patient involvement. However, 3 years after approval, significant differences emerged between researcher and PRP perspectives. Compared with researchers, PRPs reported more challenges, had differing expectations, and perceived a lower overall impact. Although PRPs were highly motivated at the start and contributed significantly to clinical components, motivation decreased for some regarding the laboratory components. This was attributed to highly technical language, long contract negotiations, and a lack of clear opportunities for input or tangible results. Consortium members collaboratively agreed upon a set of specific changes during the 5 dialogue sessions. Conclusions: Despite the early and substantial involvement of PRPs in the initial study design, the PRPs themselves rated their influence on HIPPOCRATES lower than the researchers did. Further evaluation over the next 2 years will show whether the jointly developed solutions successfully enhance their impact on future research outcomes.

Identifiers

PMID42540195
PMCPMC13425179

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.