Cargando…
A review of reviews exploring patient and public involvement in population health research and development of tools containing best practice guidance
INTRODUCTION: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly seen as something that is integral to research and of importance to research funders. There is general recognition that PPI is the right thing to do for both moral and practical reasons. The aim of this review of reviews is to examin...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10311710/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37391764 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15937-9 |
_version_ | 1785066796657672192 |
---|---|
author | Vinnicombe, Soo Bianchim, Mayara S. Noyes, Jane |
author_facet | Vinnicombe, Soo Bianchim, Mayara S. Noyes, Jane |
author_sort | Vinnicombe, Soo |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly seen as something that is integral to research and of importance to research funders. There is general recognition that PPI is the right thing to do for both moral and practical reasons. The aim of this review of reviews is to examine how PPI can be done ‘properly’ by looking at the evidence that exists from published reviews and assessing it against the UK Standards for Public Involvement in Research, as well as examining the specific features of population health research that can make PPI more challenging. METHODS: A review of reviews and development of best practice guidance was carried out following the 5-stage Framework Synthesis method. RESULTS: In total 31 reviews were included. There is a lack of current research or clarity around Governance and Impact when findings are mapped against UK Standards for Public Involvement in Research. It was also clear that there is little knowledge around PPI with under-represented groups. There are gaps in knowledge about how to ensure key specific attributes of population health research are addressed for PPI team members – particularly around how to deal with complexity and the data-driven nature of the research. Four tools were produced for researchers and PPI members to further improve their PPI activity within population health research and health research more generally, including a framework of recommended actions to address PPI in population health research, and guidance on integrating PPI based on the UK Standards for Public Involvement in Research. CONCLUSIONS: Facilitating PPI in population health research is challenging due to the nature of this type of research and there is far less evidence on how to do PPI well in this context. The tools can help researchers identify key aspects of PPI that can be integrated when designing PPI within projects. Findings also highlight specific areas where more research or discussion is needed. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-023-15937-9. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10311710 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-103117102023-07-01 A review of reviews exploring patient and public involvement in population health research and development of tools containing best practice guidance Vinnicombe, Soo Bianchim, Mayara S. Noyes, Jane BMC Public Health Research INTRODUCTION: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly seen as something that is integral to research and of importance to research funders. There is general recognition that PPI is the right thing to do for both moral and practical reasons. The aim of this review of reviews is to examine how PPI can be done ‘properly’ by looking at the evidence that exists from published reviews and assessing it against the UK Standards for Public Involvement in Research, as well as examining the specific features of population health research that can make PPI more challenging. METHODS: A review of reviews and development of best practice guidance was carried out following the 5-stage Framework Synthesis method. RESULTS: In total 31 reviews were included. There is a lack of current research or clarity around Governance and Impact when findings are mapped against UK Standards for Public Involvement in Research. It was also clear that there is little knowledge around PPI with under-represented groups. There are gaps in knowledge about how to ensure key specific attributes of population health research are addressed for PPI team members – particularly around how to deal with complexity and the data-driven nature of the research. Four tools were produced for researchers and PPI members to further improve their PPI activity within population health research and health research more generally, including a framework of recommended actions to address PPI in population health research, and guidance on integrating PPI based on the UK Standards for Public Involvement in Research. CONCLUSIONS: Facilitating PPI in population health research is challenging due to the nature of this type of research and there is far less evidence on how to do PPI well in this context. The tools can help researchers identify key aspects of PPI that can be integrated when designing PPI within projects. Findings also highlight specific areas where more research or discussion is needed. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-023-15937-9. BioMed Central 2023-06-30 /pmc/articles/PMC10311710/ /pubmed/37391764 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15937-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Vinnicombe, Soo Bianchim, Mayara S. Noyes, Jane A review of reviews exploring patient and public involvement in population health research and development of tools containing best practice guidance |
title | A review of reviews exploring patient and public involvement in population health research and development of tools containing best practice guidance |
title_full | A review of reviews exploring patient and public involvement in population health research and development of tools containing best practice guidance |
title_fullStr | A review of reviews exploring patient and public involvement in population health research and development of tools containing best practice guidance |
title_full_unstemmed | A review of reviews exploring patient and public involvement in population health research and development of tools containing best practice guidance |
title_short | A review of reviews exploring patient and public involvement in population health research and development of tools containing best practice guidance |
title_sort | review of reviews exploring patient and public involvement in population health research and development of tools containing best practice guidance |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10311710/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37391764 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15937-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vinnicombesoo areviewofreviewsexploringpatientandpublicinvolvementinpopulationhealthresearchanddevelopmentoftoolscontainingbestpracticeguidance AT bianchimmayaras areviewofreviewsexploringpatientandpublicinvolvementinpopulationhealthresearchanddevelopmentoftoolscontainingbestpracticeguidance AT noyesjane areviewofreviewsexploringpatientandpublicinvolvementinpopulationhealthresearchanddevelopmentoftoolscontainingbestpracticeguidance AT vinnicombesoo reviewofreviewsexploringpatientandpublicinvolvementinpopulationhealthresearchanddevelopmentoftoolscontainingbestpracticeguidance AT bianchimmayaras reviewofreviewsexploringpatientandpublicinvolvementinpopulationhealthresearchanddevelopmentoftoolscontainingbestpracticeguidance AT noyesjane reviewofreviewsexploringpatientandpublicinvolvementinpopulationhealthresearchanddevelopmentoftoolscontainingbestpracticeguidance |