One small step…
Open accessAbstract
This editorial introduces the new, online, open-access journal Research Involvement and Engagement. The journal considers manuscripts on any aspect of the engagement or involvement of patients, carers or members of the public in design, delivery and dissemination of research in health or social care. We support the involvement of patients in the production of the journal, as co-authors, as reviewers and as consumers of the journal, through plain English summaries. We want patients and the wider public to become engaged with research and influence its future direction. Through the co-production of the Journal, we wish to encapsulate the vision of “nothing about me without me”. The journal of Research Involvement and Engagement provides a dedicated place for publication of research focused on public involvement and engagement, as well as a forum for discussion of methodological issues that will lead to increased scientific rigour in public involvement and to an enhanced evidence base to underpin best practice internationally.
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
Cites
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?
The success of PPI in this study may relate to several factors, including patient partners' prior training, researchers' experience, and good relationships.
“The success of the PPI in this study may relate to several factors. Firstly, the patient partners had received training around research methods in previous studies and were actively involved in a patient and public involvement group attached to the University of Warwick Medical School. Furthermore, the researchers were experienced at involving patient partners in their research [22]. Finally, good”
From GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research (2017) · cites this paper as [22]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 8 · Cited by 50
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [5]BioMed Central license agreement. Available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/authors/license (Accessed 10 June 2015).
- Authors
- Stephens, R., & Staniszewska, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Warwick (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Staniszewska, Sophie
- Venue
- Research Involvement and Engagement
- Published
- 2015-06-25
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-1
- ISSN
- 2056-7529 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5598092
- OpenAlex
- W2157159017
- Cited by
- 50
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Research Involvement and Engagement (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Warwick
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Keywords
- public involvement in research, patient and public engagement, knowledge co-production, patient and carer involvement, health and social care research, research dissemination
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
