↓ Skip to main content

What Difference Does Patient and Public Involvement Make and What Are Its Pathways to Impact? Qualitative Study of Patients and Researchers from a Cohort of Randomised Clinical Trials

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
37 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
96 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
165 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
What Difference Does Patient and Public Involvement Make and What Are Its Pathways to Impact? Qualitative Study of Patients and Researchers from a Cohort of Randomised Clinical Trials
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0128817
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louise Dudley, Carrol Gamble, Jennifer Preston, Deborah Buck, The EPIC Patient Advisory Group, Bec Hanley, Paula Williamson, Bridget Young

Abstract

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is advocated in clinical trials yet evidence on how to optimise its impact is limited. We explored researchers' and PPI contributors' accounts of the impact of PPI within trials and factors likely to influence its impact. Semi-structured qualitative interviews with researchers and PPI contributors accessed through a cohort of randomised clinical trials. Analysis of transcripts of audio-recorded interviews was informed by the principles of the constant comparative method, elements of content analysis and informant triangulation. We interviewed 21 chief investigators, 10 trial managers and 17 PPI contributors from 28 trials. The accounts of informants within the same trials were largely in agreement. Over half the informants indicted PPI had made a difference within a trial, through contributions that influenced either an aspect of a trial, or how researchers thought about a trial. According to informants, the opportunity for PPI to make a difference was influenced by two main factors: whether chief investigators had goals and plans for PPI and the quality of the relationship between the research team and the PPI contributors. Early involvement of PPI contributors and including them in responsive (e.g. advisory groups) and managerial (e.g. trial management groups) roles were more likely to achieve impact compared to late involvement and oversight roles (e.g. trial steering committees). Those seeking to enhance PPI in trials should develop goals for PPI at an early stage that fits the needs of the trial, plan PPI implementation in accordance with these goals, invest in developing good relationships between PPI contributors and researchers, and favour responsive and managerial roles for contributors in preference to oversight-only roles. These features could be used by research funders in judging PPI in trial grant applications and to inform policies to optimise PPI within trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 165 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 161 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 32 19%
Student > Master 31 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 13%
Other 12 7%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Other 25 15%
Unknown 32 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 25%
Social Sciences 23 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 11%
Psychology 18 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Other 18 11%
Unknown 41 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 May 2019.
All research outputs
#1,560,222
of 24,630,122 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#19,574
of 212,888 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,628
of 270,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#584
of 6,795 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,630,122 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 212,888 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 270,910 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6,795 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.