Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Hull York Medical School, York, UK.
BMJ Open. 2019 May 9;9(5):e026514. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026514.
Patient and public involvement (PPI) is argued to lead to higher quality health research, which is more relatable to and helps empower the public. We synthesised the evidence to look for examples of PPI in health research in low/middle-income countries (LMICs), looking at levels of involvement and impact. Additionally, we considered the impact of who was undertaking the research on the level of involvement and reported impact.
Systematic review.
EMBASE, Medline and PsychINFO, along with hand-searching references, grey literature, Google search and expert advice.
Any health research with evidence of patient or public involvement, with no language restrictions dated from 1978 to 1 Dec 2017.
Data relating to stage and level of involvement, as well as impact, were extracted by one researcher (NC), and a coding framework was developed using an inductive approach to examine the impact of PPI on research. Extracted data were then independently coded by a second lay researcher (RK) to validate the data being collected. Discrepancies were referred to a third independent reviewer (MT) for review and consensus reached.
Sixty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. The review revealed the most common stage for PPI was in research planning, and the most common level of involvement was collaboration. Most studies did not provide evidence of effectiveness or elaborate on the impact of PPI, and they tended to report impact from the researcher's perspective. Where impact was mentioned, this generally related to increased relevance to the community, empowerment of participants and alterations in study design.
The literature describing approaches to and impact of PPI on LMIC health research is sparse. As PPI is essential to conducting high-quality research, it should be fully reported and evaluated at the end of the research project.
有人认为患者和公众参与（PPI）可提高健康研究的质量，使其更能为公众所理解并有助于增强公众的能力。我们综合证据，寻找在低收入和中等收入国家（LMICs）进行的健康研究中 PPI 的例子，观察参与程度和影响。此外，我们还考虑了进行研究的人员对参与程度和报告影响的影响。
系统评价。
EMBASE、Medline 和 PsychINFO，以及参考文献的手工搜索、灰色文献、Google 搜索和专家咨询。
任何具有患者或公众参与证据的健康研究，无语言限制，时间从 1978 年至 2017 年 12 月 1 日。
一名研究人员（NC）提取与参与阶段和水平以及影响有关的数据，并采用归纳法制定编码框架，以检查 PPI 对研究的影响。然后，由第二位非专业研究人员（RK）独立对提取的数据进行编码，以验证所收集的数据。分歧提交给第三位独立审查员（MT）审查并达成共识。
符合纳入标准的 62 项研究。综述显示，PPI 最常见的阶段是研究规划，最常见的参与水平是合作。大多数研究没有提供有效性的证据或详细说明 PPI 的影响，而且它们往往从研究人员的角度报告影响。在提到影响的地方，这通常与增加对社区的相关性、增强参与者的能力以及改变研究设计有关。
描述在 LMIC 健康研究中 PPI 方法和影响的文献很少。由于 PPI 对进行高质量研究至关重要，因此应在研究项目结束时全面报告和评估。
