For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
39
views
50
references
 Top references
cited by
209
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      88
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research has expanded nationally and internationally over the last decade, and recently there has been significant attention given to understanding its impact on research. Less attention has been given to the impact of PPI on the people involved, yet it has been shown that the success of PPI in research can be reliant on the processes of engagement between these individuals and communities. This paper therefore critically explores the impact of PPI on service users, researchers and communities involved in health and social care research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references50

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The GRIPP checklist: strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research.

          Sophie Staniszewska, Jo Brett, Carole Mockford … (2011)
          The aim of this study was to develop the GRIPP (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and Public) checklist to enhance the quality of PPI reporting. Thematic analysis was used to synthesize key issues relating to patient and public involvement (PPI) identified in the PIRICOM and PAPIRIS systematic reviews. These issues informed the development of the GRIPP checklist. The key issues identified included limited conceptualization of PPI, poor quality of methods reporting, unclear content validity of studies, poor reporting of context and process, enormous variability in the way impact is reported, little formal evaluation of the quality of involvement, limited focus on negative impacts, and little robust measurement of impact. The GRIPP checklist addresses these key issues. The reporting of patient and public involvement in health research needs significant enhancement. The GRIPP checklist represents the first international attempt to enhance the quality of PPI reporting. Better reporting will strengthen the PPI evidence-base and so enable more effective evaluation of what PPI works, for whom, in what circumstances and why.
          Article 0 comments Cited 162 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Participatory action research with older adults: key principles in practice.

            Meredith Minkler, Thomas Blair (2009)
            Although participatory action research (PAR) is increasingly viewed as an important complement to traditional investigator-driven research, relatively little PAR has taken place in which older adults have been prominent partners. This article provides a review of the literature on PAR in gerontology, highlighting key studies and their implications.
            Article 0 comments Cited 50 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              From passive subjects to equal partners

              Premila Trivedi, Til Wykes (2002)
              The Department of Health and UK funding bodies have suggested that clinical academics work closely with mental health service users in research projects. Although there are helpful guidelines on the issues that have to be dealt with, there have been few examples of how this partnership research might be undertaken. To illustrate the challenges in joint research projects. We subjected the process of user involvement to ten questions which arose in the development of a joint research project. The answers are an amalgamation of the user and clinical researcher considerations and are affected by hindsight. The involvement of the user-researcher changed the focus of the study and its design and content. More attention was paid to the intervention itself and the way in which it was delivered. This process increased the amount of time taken to carry out and write up the project as well as incurring financial costs for user consultation payments and dissemination. This experience has clarified the contribution that users can make, for example by raising new research questions, by ensuring interventions are kept ‘user friendly’, and the selection of outcome measures.
              Article 0 comments Cited 43 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Patient
                Title: The patient
                ISSN: 1178-1653
                ISSN (Print): 1178-1653
                Publication date (Electronic): 2014
                Volume: 7
                Issue: 4
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Royal College of Nursing Research Institute, Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK, J.Brett@warwick.ac.uk.
                Article
                DOI: 10.1007/s40271-014-0065-0
                PubMed ID: 25034612
                SO-VID: 946f6c7b-d29b-4600-838c-f6a08bd8fb13
                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content88

                See all similar

                Cited by303

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors486

                See all reference authors