Cargando…

Patient and public involvement in health research in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES: 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 invol...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cook, Natalie, Siddiqi, Najma, Twiddy, Maureen, Kenyon, Richard
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6528003/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31076471
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026514
_version_ 1783420130615623680
author Cook, Natalie
Siddiqi, Najma
Twiddy, Maureen
Kenyon, Richard
author_facet Cook, Natalie
Siddiqi, Najma
Twiddy, Maureen
Kenyon, Richard
author_sort Cook, Natalie
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: 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. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: EMBASE, Medline and PsychINFO, along with hand-searching references, grey literature, Google search and expert advice. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Any health research with evidence of patient or public involvement, with no language restrictions dated from 1978 to 1 Dec 2017. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6528003
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65280032019-06-05 Patient and public involvement in health research in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review Cook, Natalie Siddiqi, Najma Twiddy, Maureen Kenyon, Richard BMJ Open Global Health OBJECTIVES: 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. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: EMBASE, Medline and PsychINFO, along with hand-searching references, grey literature, Google search and expert advice. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Any health research with evidence of patient or public involvement, with no language restrictions dated from 1978 to 1 Dec 2017. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-05-09 /pmc/articles/PMC6528003/ /pubmed/31076471 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026514 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Global Health
Cook, Natalie
Siddiqi, Najma
Twiddy, Maureen
Kenyon, Richard
Patient and public involvement in health research in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review
title Patient and public involvement in health research in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review
title_full Patient and public involvement in health research in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review
title_fullStr Patient and public involvement in health research in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Patient and public involvement in health research in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review
title_short Patient and public involvement in health research in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review
title_sort patient and public involvement in health research in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review
topic Global Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6528003/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31076471
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026514
work_keys_str_mv AT cooknatalie patientandpublicinvolvementinhealthresearchinlowandmiddleincomecountriesasystematicreview
AT siddiqinajma patientandpublicinvolvementinhealthresearchinlowandmiddleincomecountriesasystematicreview
AT twiddymaureen patientandpublicinvolvementinhealthresearchinlowandmiddleincomecountriesasystematicreview
AT kenyonrichard patientandpublicinvolvementinhealthresearchinlowandmiddleincomecountriesasystematicreview