Cited by 234Mental Health and Patient InvolvementEthics in Clinical ResearchHealth Policy Implementation Science

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.

Patient and public involvement in the design of clinical trials: An overview of systematic reviews

Open access

Price, Amy, Albarqouni, Loai, Kirkpatrick, Jo, Clarke, Mike, Liew, Su May, Roberts, Nia, Burls, Amanda·2018·Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

DOI 10.1111/jep.12805

Open this paper in CoChat — free account Open PDF

Abstract

Background: Funders encourage lay‐volunteer inclusion in research. There are controversy and resistance, given concerns of role confusion, exploratory methods, and limited evidence about what value lay‐volunteers bring to research. This overview explores these areas. Methods: Eleven databases were searched without date or language restrictions for systematic reviews of public and patient involvement (PPI) in clinical trials design. This systematic overview of PPI included 27 reviews from which areas of good and bad practice were identified. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of PPI were explored through use of meta‐narrative analysis. Results: Inclusion criteria were met by 27 reviews ranging in quality from high ( n = 7), medium ( n = 14) to low ( n = 6) reviews. Reviews were assessed using CERQUAL NICE, CASP for qualitative research and CASP for systematic reviews. Four reviews report risk of bias. Public involvement roles were primarily in agenda setting, steering committees, ethical review, protocol development, and piloting. Research summaries, follow‐up, and dissemination contained PPI, with lesser involvement in data collection, analysis, or manuscript authoring. Trialists report difficulty in finding, retaining, and reimbursing volunteers. Respectful inclusion, role recognition, mutual flexibility, advance planning, and sound methods were reported as facilitating public involvement in research. Public involvement was reported to have increased the quantity and quality of patient relevant priorities and outcomes, enrollment, funding, design, implementation, and dissemination. Challenges identified include lack of clarity within common language, roles, and research boundaries, while logistical needs include extra time, training, and funding. Researchers report struggling to report involvement and avoid tokenism. Conclusions: Involving patients and the public in clinical trials design can be beneficial but requires resources, preparation, training, flexibility, and time. Issues to address include reporting deficits for risk of bias, study quality, and conflicts of interests. We need to address these tensions and improve dissemination strategies to increase PPI and health literacy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jep.12805

Cites

70 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700 · Cited by 17,648
Self-citation
GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables
Guyatt, G., Oxman, A. D., Akl, E. A., Kunz, R., Vist, G., Brozek, J., Norris, S., Falck-Ytter, Y., Glasziou, P., & deBeer, H. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026 · Cited by 10,681
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
Tarsilla, M. (2010) · Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation · doi:10.56645/jmde.v6i14.284 · Cited by 5,232
Patient engagement in research: a systematic review
Domecq, J. P., Prutsky, G., Elraiyah, T., Wang, Z., Nabhan, M., Shippee, N., Brito, J. P., Boehmer, K., Hasan, R., Firwana, B., et al. (2014) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-89 · Cited by 1,773
Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review
Brett, J., Staniszewska, S., Mockford, C., Herron‐Marx, S., Hughes, J., Tysall, C., & Suleman, R. (2014) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x · Cited by 1,598
Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Greenland, S., Hlatky, M. A., Khoury, M. J., Macleod, M. R., Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Tibshirani, R. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62227-8 · Cited by 1,597
Uncovering the Benefits of Participatory Research: Implications of a Realist Review for Health Research and Practice
JAGOSH, J., MACAULAY, A. C., PLUYE, P., SALSBERG, J., BUSH, P. L., HENDERSON, J., SIRETT, E., WONG, G., CARGO, M., HERBERT, C. P., et al. (2012) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2012.00665.x · Cited by 1,268
Knowledge is not power for patients: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient-reported barriers and facilitators to shared decision making
Joseph‐Williams, N., Elwyn, G. J., & Edwards, A. (2013) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2013.10.031 · Cited by 1,244
Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions
Smith, V., Devane, D., Begley, C. M., & Clarke, M. (2011) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-15 · Cited by 1,227
Self-citation

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 70 references

Research works printed but not linked: 13

The Mendeley Support Team, 2011, Getting Started with Mendeley. Mendeley Desktop, 1
CASP, 2013, Critical Appriasal Skills Programme (CASP) Systematic Review Checklist, 1
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2012, Methods for the development of NICE public health guidence
10.1111/hex.12007 · DOI
BrettJ StaniszewskaS MockfordC SeersK Herron‐marxS BaylissH.The PIRICOM Study: A systematic review of the conceptualisation measurement impact and outcomes of patients and public involvement in health and social care research. University of Warwick.2010.
Stokes G, 2015, Review 3: Community engagement for health via coalitions, collaborations and partnerships ( on‐line social media and social networks) A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Tarpey M, 2014, Public involvement in research applications to the National Research Ethics Service: Comparative analysis of 2010 and 2012 data
Price A, 2016, The evidence informed patient, BMJ, 4
Price A, 2017, Developing tools for practice that support patient choice, The BMJ, 6
Price A, 2017, Cochrane Canada Symposium
Price A, 2017, Building Public Participation in Research. In: FORCE11 Scholarly Communication Institute (FSCI)
10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00648.x · DOI
BlazebyJM GargonE AltmanDG ClarkeM WilliamsonPR.The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative. Trials Conference: Clinical Trials Methodology Conference.2011;20111004(20111005).

Sorted by citations

Items 201–233 of 233

Additional file 1 of Patient and public involvement in randomised clinical trials: a mixed-methods study of a clinical trials unit to identify good practice, barriers and facilitators
Selman, L. E., Clement, C., Douglas, M., Douglas, K. C., Taylor, J., Metcalfe, C., Lane, J. A., & Horwood, J. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.16863841
Additional file 1 of Patient and public involvement in an international rheumatology translational research project: an evaluation
de Souza, S., Johansson, E. C., Karlfeldt, S., Raza, K., & Williams, R. A. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.21384197
Additional file 1 of Sustaining connections: feasibility and impact of long-term virtual patient engagement
Stefanik-Guizlo, K., Allen, C., Brush, S., Mogk, J. M., Canada, S., Peck, M., Ramos, K., Volpe, K., & Lozano, P. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.25284780
Additional file 3 of Involving patients and clinicians in the development of a randomised clinical trial protocol to assess spinal manual therapy versus nerve root injection for patients with lumbar radiculopathy: a patient and public involvement project to inform the SALuBRITY trial design
Ryf, C., Hofstetter, L., Clack, L., & Hincapié, C. A. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26668500
Additional file 1 of Involving patients and clinicians in the development of a randomised clinical trial protocol to assess spinal manual therapy versus nerve root injection for patients with lumbar radiculopathy: a patient and public involvement project to inform the SALuBRITY trial design
Ryf, C., Hofstetter, L., Clack, L., & Hincapié, C. A. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26668494
Additional file 1 of Whose knowledge counts? Involving communities in intervention and trial design using community conversations
Burgess, R. A., Shittu, F., Iuliano, A., Haruna, I., Valentine, P., Bakare, A. A., Colbourn, T., Graham, H. R., McCollum, E. D., Falade, A. G., et al. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26595515
Additional file 1 of A multi-stakeholder approach to the co-production of the research agenda for medicines optimisation
Fellenor, J., Britten, N., Courtenay, M., Payne, R. A., Valderas, J. M., Denholm, R., Duncan, P., McCahon, D., Tatnell, L., Fitzgerald, R., et al. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13571990
Additional file 2 of Patient and public involvement in randomised clinical trials: a mixed-methods study of a clinical trials unit to identify good practice, barriers and facilitators
Selman, L. E., Clement, C., Douglas, M., Douglas, K. C., Taylor, J., Metcalfe, C., Lane, J. A., & Horwood, J. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.16863844
Additional file 1 of Reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research publications: using the GRIPP2 checklists with lay co-researchers
Jones, J., Cowe, M., Marks, S. A., McAllister, T., Mendoza, A., Ponniah, C., Wythe, H., & Mathie, E. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.15041070
Additional file 1 of Evaluation of research co-design in health: a systematic overview of reviews and development of a framework
Peters, S., Guccione, L., Francis, J., Best, S., Tavender, E. J., Curran, J., Davies, K., Rowe, S., Palmer, V. J., & Klaic, M. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.27000751
Additional file 2 of Involving patients and clinicians in the development of a randomised clinical trial protocol to assess spinal manual therapy versus nerve root injection for patients with lumbar radiculopathy: a patient and public involvement project to inform the SALuBRITY trial design
Ryf, C., Hofstetter, L., Clack, L., & Hincapié, C. A. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26668497
Additional file 3 of Reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research publications: using the GRIPP2 checklists with lay co-researchers
Jones, J., Cowe, M., Marks, S. A., McAllister, T., Mendoza, A., Ponniah, C., Wythe, H., & Mathie, E. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.15041076
Additional file 4 of Involving patients and clinicians in the development of a randomised clinical trial protocol to assess spinal manual therapy versus nerve root injection for patients with lumbar radiculopathy: a patient and public involvement project to inform the SALuBRITY trial design
Ryf, C., Hofstetter, L., Clack, L., & Hincapié, C. A. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26668503
Additional file 3 of Clinical outcome measures in dementia with Lewy bodies trials: critique and recommendations
Rodriguez‐Porcel, F. E., Wyman‐Chick, K. A., Ruiz, C. A., Toledo, J. B., Ferreira, D., Urwyler, P., Weil, R. S., Kane, J., Pilotto, A., Rongve, A., et al. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.19689337
Additional file 1 of Researchers, patients, and other stakeholders’ perspectives on challenges to and strategies for engagement
Heckert, A., Forsythe, L. P., Carman, K. L., Frank, L. B., Hemphill, R. C., Elstad, E. A., Esmail, L., & Lesch, J. K. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13065424
Walking the walk: a case study of partnering with patients in designing and delivering a patient and public involvement implementation plan
South, A., Sturgeon, K., Tahsin, A., & Stephens, R. (2026) · Research Involvement and Engagement · doi:10.1186/s40900-026-00851-2
Real-Time Cardiac Biofeedback Intervention: Experiences of Patient and Public Involvement in a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bobou, M., Tanzer, M., Saramandi, A., Selai, C. E., Jenkinson, P. M., & Fotopoulou, A. (2026) · Journal of Participatory Medicine · doi:10.2196/84737
Towards high-quality and timely interim analyses in adaptive trials: a scoping review of best practice and evidence gaps
Thomson, K. H., Agbeleye, O., Oparah, C., Inskip, A., Breckons, M., Bardgett, M., Bevin-Nicholls, A., Hancock, H. C., Mossop, H., Phillipson, J., et al. (2026) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-026-09643-1
International multi-stakeholder consensus statement on patient, carer and public involvement to enhance clinical trial integrity
Khan, K. S., Fawzy, M. M., Juhász, B., CHIEN, P. F. W., Martín-Díaz, M., Zamora, J., Ruano‐Raviña, A., Núñez‐Núñez, M., Prieto, M. D. C. A., Martínez‐Vázquez, S., et al. (2026) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2026.2647346
“Truly having a conversation with each member about their needs”: accessibility considerations for the engagement of people with lived and living experience and caregivers in mental health and substance use health research
Hawke, L. D., Dada‐Phillips, W., Munro, C., Hauer, S., Sendanyoye, C., Upham, K., van Kesteren, M. R., Amartey, A., Lunsky, Y., & Halsall, T. (2026) · Research Involvement and Engagement · doi:10.1186/s40900-026-00912-6
Navigating Long‐Term Co‐Creative Research With Young Adults Diagnosed With Cancer: A Qualitative Study
Marklund, S., Skog, R., Sjödin, L., Rose, J., Silén, M., Wettergren, L., & Lampic, C. (2026) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.70713
Perception of physiotherapy researchers about patient and public involvement in health research design and planning in Nigeria
Fawole, H. O., Osuji, P. O., Idowu, O. A., Obiekwe, S. J., Kolawole, F. O., Fatai, K. E., Okafor, A. C., Aku-Dania, G. A., Bolu, C. D., Adeniji, T., et al. (2026) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-026-14925-0
Balancing Trade‐Offs in Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement in Rapid Evaluation: Reflections and Lessons
Ng, P. L., Mehta, R., Ramsay, A. I. G., Fulop, N., & Shand, J. (2026) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.70749
Embedding the public voice in clinical trials: developing public-informed training for patient data research
Lugg-Widger, F. V., Brocklehurst, C., Chave, S., Farey, L., Gautam, A., Goodall, E., Goonasekera, M. A., Iheanacho, D., Kumar, R., Lloyd, J., et al. (2026) · Research Involvement and Engagement · doi:10.1186/s40900-026-00928-y
Using Patient and Public Involvement to Develop a Survey for Economic Evaluation in Dementia Research
Eaglestone, G., Stoner, C. R., Pacella, R., & McCrone, P. (2026) · Applied Health Economics and Health Policy · doi:10.1007/s40258-026-01061-3
Nonpharmacological Adjuncts to Reduce Perioperative Anxiety and Pain for Awake Gynecological Procedures: A Scoping Review
Penner, K. E., Johnson, H., Govia, R. N. M., Leylek, M., Renkas, R., & El-Gabalawy, R. M. (2026) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000008216
What makes a good research invitation for patient and public participants in core outcome set studies: a UK-based consensus meeting to develop guidance
Barrington, H., Craven, R., Williamson, P. R., & Young, B. (2026) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-111017 · Cited by 1
Evaluation of an Internet-Delivered Multidisciplinary Pain Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (IMPACT) Program for Individuals Living with Chronic Pain: A Feasibility and Pilot Study
El-Gabalawy, R. M., Sabourin, B. C., Tkachuk, G. A., Logan, G. S., Penner, K. E., Shay, B. L., Bilevicius, E., Graff, L. A., Skrabek, R. Q., Senn, J., et al. (2026) · Canadian Journal of Pain · doi:10.1080/24740527.2026.2696248
Indicator Development for the Evaluation of User‐Researcher Collaboration in Health Research: A Co‐Designed, Modified Delphi‐Study
Verweij, L., Safford, J., Oesch, S., Köhler, M., Zurbrügg, T., Brülhart, T., Jourdan, M., Marinello, C. D. B., & Naef, R. (2026) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.70880
Participant experiences and recommendations for psychedelic clinical trials and future treatment delivery: a qualitative study with experts by experience from the Psychedelic Participant Advocacy Network
Seynaeve, M., Schneider, L., Roullier, I., Lazenby, K., Lilley, C., Lobo, S., Ermakova, A. O., Wells, H., Cleare, A. J., & Rucker, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1682810
Two explanations of experts by experience in psychiatry: epistemic capabilities or epistemic diversity
Sugimoto, M. (2026) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-026-05862-w
Blinding: Misleading interpretation of the Karlowski (1975) trial in the Consort (2025) statement
Hemilä, H. (2025) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.20308865
Supporting meaningful contributions of people affected by Parkinson's throughout the research process: Key considerations for inclusive patient and public involvement across the globe
Zeissler, M., McFarthing, K., Bartlett, M., Fothergill‐Misbah, N., Carroll, C., & Ardle, R. M. (2026) · Journal of Parkinson s Disease · doi:10.1177/1877718x261502271

Authors: Price, A., Albarqouni, L., Kirkpatrick, J., Clarke, M., Liew, S. M., Roberts, N., & Burls, A.
Affiliations: University of Oxford (GB)
Bond University (AU)
Empower‐2‐Go UK and USA
Queen's University Belfast (GB)
University of Malaya (MY)
City, University of London (GB)
Corresponding author: Price, Amy
ORCID: Price, Amy
Albarqouni, Loai
Kirkpatrick, Jo
Clarke, Mike
Liew, Su May
Roberts, Nia
Burls, Amanda
Venue: Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Publisher: Wiley
Published: 2017-10-27
Volume: 24
Issue: 1
Pages: 240-253
ISSN: 1356-1294 (ISSN-L)
1365-2753
DOI: 10.1111/jep.12805
OpenAlex: W2766144316
Cited by: 234
References: 70
Citations by year: 2026: 23 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 10
FWCI: 2.26
Type: journal article
Language: en
Open access: green
research.bond.edu.au
Licence: other-oa
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations: Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
PubMed (publishedVersion)
City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
Bond University Research Portal (Bond University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion)
Funders: Public Health Agency (STL/5334/17)
Topics: Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords: patient and public involvement, clinical trial design, lay volunteers, research ethics committees, trial steering committee, barriers to research participation, tokenism, health literacy, research dissemination, patient-relevant outcomes
MeSH terms: Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Patient Participation, Public Opinion, Research Design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Patient and public involvement in the design of clinical trials: An overview of systematic reviews

Abstract

Overview

Integrity signals

Verification

Claims the paper makes

Claims other papers make about this one

Self-check

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Related

Metadata

Record

About these checks