ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026
"It gives me confidence and value": evaluating All_Ears@UoS patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group three years on.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAll_Ears@UoS is a thriving patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group that was established in March 2022. The ethos of All_Ears is to create an enduring partnership between researchers and people with lived experience of hearing loss to shape and inform research. This paper describes the findings from an evaluation to measure the perceived impact, value and engagement of the group. The UK Standards for Public Involvement were used as a framework. These include; Communications, Governance, Impact, Working together, Support and learning and Inclusive opportunities.
methodsTwo surveys were co-designed with members of All_Ears and shared via an online platform to evaluate what was working well and what could be improved from the group members' and researchers' perspectives. Each survey combined demographic questions, rating scale questions to measure satisfaction and open-text questions to gather feedback. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the satisfaction and demographic data. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse the free-text responses.
resultsStrengths aligning to several of the UK Standards for Public Involvement were identified. Thematic analysis of group member responses developed six themes, encompassing the perceived value of the group for research, opportunities for learning and raising awareness, the benefits of the group, aspects that were working well or less well, and considerations around diversity and inclusivity. Four themes were developed from the analysis of researcher responses. Three themes reflected strong support for PPIE within research, while one focused on strengths and challenges in how the group was organised and run. Suggested areas for improvement were to enhance training opportunities to develop skills to support involvement and greater flexibility around meeting scheduling. Group members suggested that a faster reimbursement process is necessary while researchers highlighted a need for increased visibility of public involvement within the University.
conclusionsThis evaluation has highlighted the perceived value, impact and benefits of embedding enduring PPIE on research and at an individual and societal level from the group members' and researchers' perspectives. We hope the findings enable biomedical and clinical researchers to see the value of building partnerships with patients and the public. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.