Dataset Information

Reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research publications: using the GRIPP2 checklists with lay co-researchers.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health and social care research is considered important internationally, with increasing evidence that PPI improves the quality, relevance and outcomes of research. There has been a growth in research publications that describe PPI in the research process, but the frequency and detail of PPI reporting varies considerably. This paper reports on a collaborative study that aimed to describe the extent of PPI in publications from research funded by the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) in the East of England (EoE), part of the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) in England (2014-2019).

Methods

A descriptive study of all research publications (1st January 2014 to 31st October 2017) funded by the NIHR CLAHRC EoE. Members of the Public Involvement in Research group (PIRg), at the University of Hertfordshire, were actively involved, with four PIRg co-researchers. We used an internationally recognised reporting checklist for PPI called the GRIPP2 (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public, Version 2) to guide the reviewing process.

Results

Out of 148 research papers identified, 16 (14%) reported some aspect of PPI activity and were included for review. Ten of the publications (63%) acknowledged the contributions of PPI individuals and/or groups and five had PPI co-authors. There was considerable variation in the PPI reported in the publications, with some 'missed opportunities' to provide detail of PPI undertaken. The perspectives of the co-researchers shaped the reporting of the results from this study. The co-researchers found the GRIPP2-SF (short form) to be useful, but the GRIPP2-LF (long form) was considered over complicated and not user-friendly.

Conclusions

This is one of the first studies to involve lay co-researchers in the review of PPI reporting using the GRIPP2 reporting checklists (GRIPP2-SF and GRIPP2-LF). We make recommendations for a revised version of the GRIPP2-SF, with clearer instructions and three additional sections to record whether PPI is reported in the abstract or key words, in the acknowledgements section, and whether there are PPI co-authors. We also recommend the provision of training and support for patient and public peer reviewers.

SUBMITTER: Jones J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8296743 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background While the patient and public involvement (PPI) evidence base has expanded over the past decade, the quality of reporting within papers is often inconsistent, limiting our understanding of how it works, in what context, for whom, and why.Objective To develop international consensus on the key items to report to enhance the quality, transparency, and consistency of the PPI evidence base. To collaboratively involve patients as research partners at all stages in the development of GRIPP2.Methods The EQUATOR method for developing reporting guidelines was used. The original GRIPP (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public) checklist was revised, based on updated systematic review evidence. A three round Delphi survey was used to develop consensus on items to be included in the guideline. A subsequent face-to-face meeting produced agreement on items not reaching consensus during the Delphi process.Results 143 participants agreed to participate in round one, with an 86% (123/143) response for round two and a 78% (112/143) response for round three. The Delphi survey identified the need for long form (LF) and short form (SF) versions. GRIPP2-LF includes 34 items on aims, definitions, concepts and theory, methods, stages and nature of involvement, context, capture or measurement of impact, outcomes, economic assessment, and reflections and is suitable for studies where the main focus is PPI. GRIPP2-SF includes five items on aims, methods, results, outcomes, and critical perspective and is suitable for studies where PPI is a secondary focus.Conclusions GRIPP2-LF and GRIPP2-SF represent the first international evidence based, consensus informed guidance for reporting patient and public involvement in research. Both versions of GRIPP2 aim to improve the quality, transparency, and consistency of the international PPI evidence base, to ensure PPI practice is based on the best evidence. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on The BMJ and Research Involvement and Engagement journal websites.

Project description:Background:Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in research is a growing field of work, incorporating experiential knowledge within research processes. Co-production is a more recent PPI approach that emphasises the importance of power-sharing to promote inclusive research practices, valuing and respecting knowledge from different sources, and relationship building. Applying co-production principles in research trials can be difficult, and there are few detailed worked examples or toolkits. This paper explores the successes and challenges encountered by one research team. Methods:Our paper is written by a team of 21 people working on PARTNERS2, led by a smaller co-ordinating group. Using a co-operative style inquiry, the authors have reflected on and written about their experiences; analysis of the resulting 15 accounts provided examples of how PPI and co-production were delivered in practice. Results:We reveal varied and complicated experiences as we developed our collaborative approach across the entire research programme. Four main themes emerge from reflective accounts which describe aspects of this process: (1) recognising the importance of 'emotional work'; (2) developing safe spaces to create and share knowledge; (3) some challenges of using our personal identities in research work; and (4) acknowledging power-sharing within the research hierarchy. We also found continual relationship building, how different forms of expertise were valued, and stigma were central to shaping what work was possible together. Other important practices were transparency, particularly over decision making, and clear communication. Conclusions:Our work provides one example of the 'messy' nature of collaborative research in practice. The learning we surface was contextual, generated within a large-scale research programme, but applicable to other studies. We found for success there needs to be an acknowledgement of the importance of emotional work, creating safe spaces to co-produce, transparency in decision making and reflection on the difficulties of using personal identities in research work including for service user researchers. These elements are more important than existing guidelines suggest. Implementation of actions to support emotional work, will require changes within individual teams as well as institutions. Introducing reflective practice in teams may be helpful in identifying further improvements to inclusive research practice.

Project description:IntroductionLittle is known about the accuracy of societal publications (e.g. press releases, internet postings or professional journals) that are based on scientific work. This study investigates a) inconsistencies between scientific peer-reviewed health services research (HSR) publications and non-scientific societal publications and b) replication of reporting inadequacies from these scientific publications to corresponding societal publications.MethodsA sample of HSR publications was drawn from 116 publications authored in 2016 by thirteen Dutch HSR institutions. Societal publications corresponding to scientific publications were identified through a systematic internet search. We conducted a qualitative, directed content analysis on societal publications derived from the scientific publications to assess both reporting inadequacies and determine inconsistencies. Descriptive frequencies were calculated for all variables. Odds ratios were used to investigate whether inconsistencies in societal publications were less likely when the first scientific author was involved.ResultsWe identified 43 scientific and 156 societal publications. 94 societal publications (60.3%), (associated with 32 scientific publications (74.4%)) contained messages that were inconsistent with the scientific work. We found reporting inadequacies in 22 scientific publications (51.2%). In 45 societal publications (28.9%), we found replications of these reporting inadequacies. The likelihood of inconsistencies between scientific and societal publications did not differ when the latter explicitly involved the first scientific author, (OR = 1.44, CI: 0.76-2.74); were published on the institute's or funder's website, (OR = 1.32, CI: 0.57-3.06); published with no involvement of a scientific author, (OR = 0.52, CI: 0.25-1.07).ConclusionTo improve societal publications, one should examine both the consistency with scientific research publications and ways to prevent replication of scientific reporting inadequacies. HSR institutions, funders, and scientific and societal publication platforms should invest in a supportive publication culture to further incentivise the responsible and skilled involvement of researchers in writing both scientific and societal publications.

Project description:Plain language summaryResearch should benefit society at large. Involving citizens those who are affected by research may not only increase the quality, but can also push research towards generating greater societal benefits and relevant outcomes for citizens. Including citizens in research also has ethical implications, which necessitate structured guidance on 'how to' meaningfully involve them. In our project, we invited a multi-stakeholder group consisting of researchers from multiple disciplines, citizen scientists, youth and patient advocates to co-create a guide on 'how to' meaningfully involve citizens in research. In five consecutive workshops, we discussed how the characteristics of interactions between researchers and citizens (e.g., building trustful relationships and communication) and what a possible project steering structure enabling meaningful public involvement in research could look like. As a result of these workshops, the PPIE 'How to' Guide for Researchers was developed to support the implementation of 'Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement' (PPIE) activities and informed a PPIE Implementation Programme funding public involvement activities in Austria.AbstractInvolving citizens in research is not widely utilised across research disciplines and countries. It requires the readiness of researchers and their organisations as well as guides on 'how to' successfully involve citizens in a meaningful way. Including the patient and citizen voice in research activities has been most frequently demonstrated in health research, however, is implemented along various degrees of involvement - from passively receiving information about science to actively involving the citizens in steering projects and research activities. In this commentary, we aim to report a multi-stakeholder co-creation process developing 'Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement' (PPIE) activities across disciplines to provide guidance for researchers and the public. We use Ludwig Boltzmann Society's (LBG) organisational framework as a case study, hence it consists of research institutes ranging from the life sciences to humanities and therefore represents a well-suited research environment for this endeavour. In a co-creation approach - to accomplish a shared understanding of public involvement in research among different stakeholders - a multi-stakeholder group comprising 11 researchers from natural sciences, life sciences, social sciences and humanities, and 13 citizens (such as patient advocates, young people and citizen scientists) were involved. In five consecutive workshops, we co-developed the nature of interactions between citizens and researchers, as well as governance structures enabling meaningful involvement in research. The workshops' content was informed by an initial literature review. As a result of this process, the PPIE 'How to' Guide for Researchers was developed to support the implementation of involvement activities in their research projects according to the public involvement principles. These principles informed assessment criteria for the newly established PPIE Implementation Programme at LBG. It provides funding and support for public involvement activities in research to embed a sustainable and meaningful implementation of public involvement activities in Austria.

Project description:Members of the public share their views with researchers to improve health and social care research. Lay assessing is one way of doing this. This is where people, drawing upon personal and general life experience, comment on material, such as grant applications and patient information, to highlight strengths and weaknesses and to suggest improvements. This paper reports on setting up a training programme for lay assessors. Meetings were held between interested public and staff from research organisations. People discussed what lay assessing is, why they want to do it, skills and support needed and if training was wanted. They were invited to form a group to develop the training together. Training was delivered in the East Midlands. People who attended gave their thoughts about it by completing questionnaires and joining a feedback event. The group developed the structure of the training programme together and it oversaw the development of the training content by individual members. People who attended training reported feeling more confident about lay assessing. This was particularly so for those who had not done lay assessing before. They indicated how valuable it was to talk with others at the training. Our findings support the National Institute for Health Research recommendations for improving learning and development for public involvement in research. This project has created a solid base for local research organisations to work together in public involvement training. Lay assessor training is now part of a wider programme of shared resources called the Sharebank.Background Involving members of the public in research can improve its quality and incorporate the needs and views of patients. One method for doing this is lay assessing, where members of the public are consulted to improve research materials. This paper documents the establishment of a pilot training programme for lay assessors. It describes a way of working that embodies a regional, cross-organisational approach to co-producing training with members of the public. Methods Open meetings, led by AH, were held for existing and aspiring lay assessors to define lay assessing, motivations for doing it, skills required, associated learning and development needs, and to gauge interest for training. Those who attended meetings, including members of the public and staff, were invited to form a working group to co-produce the training programme. Training was delivered in modules at two centres in the East Midlands and evaluated through participant feedback at the end of each module and at an evaluation event. Feedback was through a mix of Likert scale scoring, open text and verbal responses. Results Discussions from the open meetings informed the development of the training by the working group. Led by AH, the working group, as a whole, co-produced the structure and format of the training and oversaw training content development by individuals within the group. Training was well-received by participants. Feedback through Likert scoring (n?=?14) indicated higher feelings of confidence in knowledge of relevant subject matter and in fulfilling the lay assessor role, particularly amongst those who had not done lay assessing before. Opportunities that the training afforded for interaction between participants - sharing of varied experiences and knowledge - and a 'learn by doing' approach was of particular value, as indicated by 10 responses to open-ended questions. Conclusions This project has created a solid foundation for collaboration between research organisations in the East Midlands in devising and delivering training in public involvement together. Our evaluation provides evidence in support of National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) recommendations on principles for learning and development for public involvement in research.

Project description:ObjectivesExplore the occurrence and nature of questionable research practices (QRPs) in the reporting of messages and conclusions in international scientific Health Services Research (HSR) publications authored by researchers from HSR institutions in the Netherlands.DesignIn a joint effort to assure the overall quality of HSR publications in the Netherlands, 13 HSR institutions in the Netherlands participated in this study. Together with these institutions, we constructed and validated an assessment instrument covering 35 possible QRPs in the reporting of messages and conclusions. Two reviewers independently assessed a random sample of 116 HSR articles authored by researchers from these institutions published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals in 2016.SettingNetherlands, 2016.Sample116 international peer-reviewed HSR publications.Main outcome measuresMedian number of QRPs per publication, the percentage of publications with observed QRP frequencies, occurrence of specific QRPs and difference in total number of QRPs by methodological approach, type of research and study design.ResultsWe identified a median of six QRPs per publication out of 35 possible QRPs. QRPs occurred most frequently in the reporting of implications for practice, recommendations for practice, contradictory evidence, study limitations and conclusions based on the results and in the context of the literature. We identified no differences in total number of QRPs in papers based on different methodological approach, type of research or study design.ConclusionsGiven the applied nature of HSR, both the severity of the identified QRPs, and the recommendations for policy and practice in HSR publications warrant discussion. We recommend that the HSR field further define and establish its own scientific norms in publication practices to improve scientific reporting and strengthen the impact of HSR. The results of our study can serve as an empirical basis for continuous critical reflection on the reporting of messages and conclusions.