Jones Julia, Cowe Marion, Marks Sue, McAllister Tony, Mendoza Alex, Ponniah Carole, Wythe Helena, Mathie Elspeth
Centre for Research in Public Health and Community Care (CRIPACC), University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, AL10 9AB, England.
Public Involvement in Research group (PIRg) member, CRIPACC, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, AL10 9AB, England.
Res Involv Engagem. 2021 Jul 22;7(1):52. doi: 10.1186/s40900-021-00295-w.
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).
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.
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.
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.
患者及公众参与(PPI)健康与社会照护研究在国际上被视为重要事项,越来越多的证据表明,PPI可提高研究的质量、相关性及成果。描述研究过程中PPI的研究出版物有所增加,但PPI报告的频率和详细程度差异很大。本文报告了一项合作研究,旨在描述由应用健康研究与照护领导力合作组织(CLAHRC)在英格兰东部(EoE)资助的研究出版物中PPI的程度,CLAHRC是英国国家卫生研究院(NIHR)在英格兰的一部分(2014 - 2019年)。
对NIHR CLAHRC EoE资助的所有研究出版物(2014年1月1日至2017年10月31日)进行描述性研究。赫特福德大学研究公众参与小组(PIRg)的成员积极参与,有四名PIRg共同研究者。我们使用了一份国际认可的PPI报告清单,称为GRIPP2(患者及公众参与报告指南,第2版)来指导评审过程。
在确定的148篇研究论文中,16篇(14%)报告了PPI活动的某些方面并被纳入评审。其中10篇出版物(63%)认可了PPI个人和/或团体的贡献,5篇有PPI共同作者。出版物中报告的PPI存在很大差异,存在一些未详细说明所开展PPI的“错失机会”。共同研究者的观点影响了本研究结果的报告。共同研究者发现GRIPP2 - SF(简表)很有用,但GRIPP2 - LF(长表)被认为过于复杂且不便于使用。
这是首批让非专业共同研究者参与使用GRIPP2报告清单(GRIPP2 - SF和GRIPP2 - LF)评审PPI报告的研究之一。我们对GRIPP2 - SF的修订版提出建议,包括更清晰的说明以及三个额外部分,用于记录PPI是否在摘要或关键词、致谢部分中报告,以及是否有PPI共同作者。我们还建议为患者及公众同行评审员提供培训和支持。