More about the next generation advisory panel

The next generation advisory panel is a representative group that ensures that the views and interests of early-career healthcare professionals are represented throughout the planning and delivery of our International Forums in Quality and Safety in Healthcare.

The panel plays a pivotal role in providing support and advice during our planning meetings, and critically, providing a strategic direction for achieving greater representation of early career healthcare professionals during Forums, an essential part of our growing community.

Whether you used a BMJ journal, event, or tool to improve care, advance research, or influence policy, we would like to hear your story. Your experience could be featured on bmjgroup.com or in our next impact report.

Takes two minutes to complete.

Your examples help show how evidence and education become better outcomes for patients, professionals, and communities. They also help others learn what works.

What changed in your setting or community

How BMJ helped (journal, event, course, guideline, BMJ Best Practice clincial decision support, or another tool)

Who benefited (patients, clinicians, students, policy makers)

Any evidence you can share (numbers or qualitative feedback)

Example: “Using BMJ Best Practice, our team reduced time to correct diagnosis for neonatal sepsis.”

A new report from the BMJ Future Health Commission, a joint initiative between global healthcare knowledge provider BMJ Group and independent assurance and risk management provider DNV, shows that healthcare professionals (HCPs) feel digital health technologies fail to help them deliver more care with fewer resources.

According to the survey, less than half (47%) think digital technology has eased administrative tasks, just 38% say that it has reduced clinical workload, and only 44% believe that it has contributed to decreasing the cost of delivering healthcare.

Sector professionals have not given up on healthcare’s digital transformation, however. 80% say that digital tools have enabled better care delivery, and three-quarters (76%) are optimistic about healthcare’s digital future. 

The findings have been published in Building Trust for Digital Transformation in Healthcare and are based on a survey of more than 300 HCPs across Northern Europe, alongside in-depth interviews with clinicians and administrative staff across a broad range of healthcare settings.

• BMJ Future Health Commission survey shows healthcare professionals in Europe support digital transformation, but have yet to feel productivity and efficiency gains
• Three-quarters (76%) of healthcare professionals are optimistic about the future of digital transformation
• 59% trust digital health technologies, while 41% are hesitant or doubtful
• Less than half (47%) feel its introduction has eased administrative tasks, and just 38% say clinical workload has reduced
• Experts say improving training and involving clinicians earlier in the digital transformation and adoption process is needed to feel the benefits

The report comes at a time when European countries are boosting digital investment in a bid to create more sustainable healthcare systems. The UK Government’s new 10 year plan for the National Health Service sets an agenda for shifting away from analogue systems. 

While 59% of HCPs indicate that they actively trust digital health solutions, a further 41% are hesitant or doubtful. Experts interviewed by the BMJ Future Health Commission are calling for greater focus on building trust in digital transformation to scale technology adoption faster. 

 “Trust is the critical currency of digital health and operates on two essential layers. Foundational trust is earned through rigorous, transparent   standards and regulation, which set a non-negotiable safety floor for every platform. Just as vital is operational trust earned on the ward, where   frontline clinicians help design, select, and train on certified tools, ensuring technologies fit real-world workflows.

Together, these are effective accelerators of digital transformation in healthcare, building clinical confidence, closing the gap between expectations   and implementation. These insights show that too few healthcare professionals think these technologies help them deliver more care with fewer   resources.”

 Stephen McAdam
 Segment Director, Digital Health, DNV

Those who frequently use electronic health records (EHRs), the most broadly adopted technology according to the survey, are less likely to believe that digital solutions reduce administrative burden and ease the workload of clinical staff, 14 percentage points less than those who do not. The concern is that poor experiences with EHR systems do little to motivate HCPs to trust and support the scaling of other solutions with transformative potential, such as predictive analytics, remote monitoring systems, patient flow management and ambient listening. 

The need for greater trust, combined with the culmination of challenging experiences, shows that building confidence in technology is dependent on healthcare organisations strengthening the processes that connect and implement these tools, while actively managing change among the people who use them. 

Poor interoperability, which allows computer systems or software to exchange and make use of information, appears as the second-highest barrier to adoption, according to HCPs, coming narrowly behind funding constraints.

Healthcare professionals surveyed highlight that earlier clinical involvement and enhanced training can be key drivers in overcoming challenges. Over half (54%) agree that digital solutions gain stronger adoption when endorsed by clinical staff, while nearly two-thirds (61%) see an opportunity to increase HCP participation in technology investment decisions. Training emerges as the most valuable factor for effective implementation, and with greater focus, more clinicians (45%) and non-clinical healthcare workers (43%) can be supported in building confidence and capability in using digital tools.

 “Although healthcare professionals are optimistic about digital health’s potential, many remain sceptical about its impact on efficiency, workload, and costs. Building trust, improving interoperability, enhancing training, and involving clinicians more directly are critical to realising its benefits.”

 Dr Helen Surana
 Associate Director, BMJ Events

The BMJ Future Health Commission report concludes by setting out five recommendations, developed in collaboration with an advisory board of European experts, for healthcare organisations seeking to scale adoption of technology:

1. Evaluate organisational confidence in EHR systems
2. Implement standards for system interoperability
3. Commit to long term staff training
4. Involve clinicians, citizens, and patients in technology design and implementation
5. Boost investment in managing emergent risks

Note to editors

Full recommendations from the report:

• Evaluate organisational confidence in EHR systems: Investment in assessing and improving people, process, and technology within EHR systems can enhance effectiveness and user experience, thereby increasing trust and adoption of new digital health technologies.
• Implement standards for system interoperability: Poor interoperability creates significant trust issues. While European policymakers are developing regulations for standardised processes, healthcare providers can proactively introduce systems and standards today.
• Commit to long-term staff training: Implement dedicated programs for healthcare workers to absorb information over time, provide one-on-one troubleshooting support after deployment, and ensure training targets both clinical and non-clinical professionals to enhance adoption and effective use of new systems.
• Involve clinicians, citizens, and patients in technology design and implementation: Closer involvement of clinicians in digital transformation, potentially through leadership roles like Chief Medical/Clinical Informatics Officer (CMIO), can bridge gaps between departments, enhance data accuracy, patient safety, and clinical efficiency, and improve operational workflows. User experience is crucial for technology success, including in healthcare.
• Boost investment in managing emergent risks: Failure to identify and manage data security and quality risks undermines trust. Organisations should assess data vulnerabilities, determine an acceptable risk appetite, and implement measures to comply with regulations and manage risks effectively for both new and existing technologies.

For decades, research publishing followed a fixed script. Researchers investigated. Publishers validated, polished and shared their findings. Patients, if mentioned, were the subjects of the research, not contributors to it.

That model is shifting. Across the publishing industry, there’s growing recognition that people with lived experience of illness, disability or care are more than passive recipients of information. They’re experts in their own right — and they’re helping to make research more relevant, ethical and trustworthy.

This isn’t about tokenistic patient stories or soft human interest. It’s about integrating meaningful public perspectives into publishing systems and processes, and asking how we might build platforms that are not just academically rigorous but genuinely useful to those most affected by them.

Emma Doble, patient and public strategy editor at BMJ Group, contributed a feature article, Putting patients on the page, to InPublishing in the July/August 2025 issue.

The logic is simple. Research that affects people’s lives should reflect their realities. Patients, carers and members of the public bring unique insights that researchers, no matter how expert, may not anticipate. They may ask different questions, highlight overlooked issues, and challenge assumptions that seem obvious within clinical or academic circles.

At BMJ Group, we’ve worked with patients for over two decades and see this repeatedly. For example, The BMJ journal’s patient reviewers have improved papers by flagging that clinical definitions of ‘quality of life’ don’t always align with what matters most to people living with a condition. As far back as 2001, one reviewer challenged the framing of a paper on diabetes that focused on blood sugar control but overlooked fatigue and mental health, two issues patients consistently rank as more impactful. That input led to a more balanced, and ultimately more useful, revision.

Patient insights also strengthen ethical rigour. They help identify unintended harms — such as language that stigmatises or alienates — and can prevent publication of research that may lack true relevance to those it intends to help.

Of course, it’s easy to gesture towards “patient involvement” without changing much. Real integration requires intention, infrastructure and culture change.

At The BMJ, patient and public reviewers have been a formal part of the peer review process since 2014. Every research paper is reviewed not just by academic experts but also by someone with relevant lived experience. Patients also sit on the journal’s editorial board, and our international patient advisory panel helps shape our patient and public partnership strategy.

Patient and public involvement is now being adopted more widely across the business. For all our journals, we now require all submitting authors to indicate how they involved patients and the public in their research in a Patient and Public Involvement statement, holding researchers accountable for their claims of “co-production”. Several other journals across the BMJ Group portfolio now include patient and public reviewers, including BMJ Open, BMJ Global Health, BMJ Health & Care Informatics, and RMD Open (Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases).

But patient insight goes beyond research publishing. On BMJ Best Practice, our clinical decision-support tool, content is updated to more explicitly support shared decision-making. This includes clear summaries of the benefits and harms of interventions and flags when patient preferences should guide decisions. The goal is to empower not just clinicians but patients themselves and acknowledge that both types of expertise matter.

Public trust in science has become more fragile, especially after the pandemic, when people were bombarded with evolving advice and conflicting information. Publishing that brings patients into the process can help repair that trust.

Involving patients in research design and review, and clearly stating how they were involved,  signals openness, humility and respect. It shows readers that this is not research done on people, but research done with and for them.

Almost 90% of research papers first submitted to The BMJ in 2024 and sent out for peer review were also sent to a patient and public reviewer for their opinion.

You don’t need to be a medical publisher to apply these ideas. Any publisher that creates content with real-world consequences, from education to policy to social care, can benefit from integrating lived experience. Here’s how to start:

1. Bring patients into peer review: The BMJ provides training and support for patient and public reviewers, and publishes guidance on how to offer meaningful feedback. Their input focuses on clarity, relevance and usefulness. This model is scalable and replicable across sectors.
2. Embed lived experience into editorial boards and advisory panels: Patients on the group’s editorial board are not figureheads. They have a genuine say in strategic direction, topic selection and policy decisions. Publishers in other sectors, for example, social justice or education, could benefit from a similar approach.
3. Use clear, inclusive language: Patient reviewers often challenge jargon or unnecessarily technical phrasing. One small but powerful example: shifting from “subjects” to “participants” or “people living with…” immediately changes the tone. BMJ Group encourages all authors to write with a non-specialist audience in mind — not to simplify science, but to broaden its reach.
4. Show your working: More than half of our journal portfolio, including The BMJ, publishes research involving patients. This research includes a public involvement statement explaining how and when patients were involved. This increases transparency and gives readers confidence in the process.
5. Support cultural change internally: For many editors and publishers, working with patient partners is new. We provide training to support staff in collaborating respectfully, listening actively, and welcoming challenges. Mistakes are shared openly so others can learn.
6. Build feedback loops: Patient contributors are regularly asked how the process can improve. One recent outcome: simplifying reviewer instructions and offering a guide to peer review, and optional peer buddies for new reviewers unfamiliar with academic publishing.

What we’re seeing is not just a tweak to publishing workflows. It’s a value shift from control to collaboration, authority to authenticity.

When publishing includes patients, it becomes more than a vehicle for transmitting research. It becomes a mechanism for shaping it, challenging it, and ensuring it lands where it matters. It helps bridge the gap between evidence and empathy, and creates space for more equitable and inclusive conversations.

For publishers, this is both a responsibility and an opportunity.

• Responsibility: Failing to involve people in decisions that affect them risks irrelevance or harm.
• Opportunity: When we open the door to lived experience, we make our content, and our impact, far stronger.

This transition is ongoing. We’re learning, adapting, and listening, and while progress has been slow, the direction is clear. Publishers who choose this path will not just improve their content but also build stronger, more meaningful connections with the communities they serve.

In 2023, BMJ Group supported For Patients, By Patients (PxP), the first fully patient-led global research conference. Designed and run by The BMJ patient advisors, PxP proved the power of lived experience to shape research agendas.

A BMJ Open study authored by Dawn Richards and colleagues, ‘Patient engagement in a Canadian health research funding institute: implementation and impact’, confirms patient-led initiatives like PxP integrate patient insight effectively into both research and policy.

PxP set a new precedent: patients aren’t just participants, they’re experts.

In 2024, BMJ Group funded 64 patients and residents from Newham, East London, to attend the London International Forum on Quality and Safety to bridge the gap between local communities and global health systems.

Their presence ensured that local voices shaped key conversations on healthcare improvement. This inclusive action deepened community trust, expanded relevance, and empowered marginalised groups to co-create better care.

To tackle misinformation and improve care, Ireland’s Health Service Executive (HSE) gives patients direct access to trustworthy health information. With support from BMJ Best Practice, healthcare library teams are equipping citizens with clear, evidence-based patient leaflets used in consultations nationwide.

This national initiative is changing the dynamic between patients and clinicians. It enables more informed conversations, supports shared decisions, and reduces avoidable tests and treatments. Encouraged by the success of BMJ Best Practice, the HSE is considering expanding its library services to enhance patient education and advocacy further.

In June 2025, a special set of articles was published in a dedicated The BMJ Lived Experience collection. It showcases the value, competency, and capability of people with lived experiences in improving healthcare and health, and calls on health leaders at all levels to make participatory healthcare “business as usual”.

Examples to celebrate include the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s strategy to involve patients “in every step of the regulatory journey” and a new law in Brazil mandating the inclusion of people with lived experience in decision making about drugs for the public health system.

To this end, the World Health Organization created a practical guide to including lived experience in healthcare, setting the expectation that nothing about people with a health condition should be decided without their involvement.

Last year’s World Health Assembly also passed a resolution that commits governments to empowering and funding people, communities, and civil society to participate in decision-making processes at all levels of the health system. Governments must also show progress every two years.