Patient and public involvement in an evidence synthesis project: description of and reflection on involvement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We conducted an NIHR-funded evidence synthesis project, reviewing evidence relating to interventions for perceptual disorders following stroke. This related paper describes how people with lived experience of stroke-related perceptual disorders contributed to and influenced the project, and identifies lessons for future review projects. METHODS: We planned our patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) activities within a study protocol, described according to the domains of the ACTIVE framework; these were founded on principles for good practice in PPIE. Activities occurred across the lifespan of the project, consisting primarily of group discussions and voting to determine if there was consensus. To assess impact and individual experiences, we sought feedback using an evaluation form after each discussion, and conducted an online meeting at the end of the project to allow further reflection. RESULTS: We recruited five people to a Lived Experience Group, including two stroke survivors and three carers. Members attended one face-to-face meeting during the development of the review. Subsequent activities were all held online due to the COVID-19 pandemic; with six online meetings, plus email interactions. Positive impacts of the Lived Experience Group on the reviews included clear definitions of key terms, selection of outcome measures, agreement on implications of review findings, and identification of research recommendations. Key challenges identified related to the complexity of the topic and challenges in the use of new online technology as a consequence of the COVID-pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: A number of lessons were learned during this project. Specific recommendations for future PPIE are to ensure that those involved have an opportunity to get to know one another, and to provide optional sessions to increase familiarity with online meeting software, clear explanations of the purpose of involvement and specific feedback after each activity. These lessons should be considered when planning the PPIE within future reviews.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".