scholarly journals The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: a systematic review

2011 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Mockford ◽  
S. Staniszewska ◽  
F. Griffiths ◽  
S. Herron-Marx
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. k4738 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna C Crocker ◽  
Ignacio Ricci-Cabello ◽  
Adwoa Parker ◽  
Jennifer A Hirst ◽  
Alan Chant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Lived Experience ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
The Impact

AbstractObjectiveTo investigate the impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) on rates of enrolment and retention in clinical trials and explore how this varies with the context and nature of PPI.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesTen electronic databases, including Medline, INVOLVE Evidence Library, and clinical trial registries.Eligibility criteriaExperimental and observational studies quantitatively evaluating the impact of a PPI intervention, compared with no intervention or non-PPI intervention(s), on participant enrolment and/or retention rates in a clinical trial or trials. PPI interventions could include additional non-PPI components inseparable from the PPI (for example, other stakeholder involvement).Data extraction and analysisTwo independent reviewers extracted data on enrolment and retention rates, as well as on the context and characteristics of PPI intervention, and assessed risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were used to determine the average effect of PPI interventions on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: main analysis including randomised studies only, secondary analysis adding non-randomised studies, and several exploratory subgroup and sensitivity analyses.Results26 studies were included in the review; 19 were eligible for enrolment meta-analysis and five for retention meta-analysis. Various PPI interventions were identified with different degrees of involvement, different numbers and types of people involved, and input at different stages of the trial process. On average, PPI interventions modestly but significantly increased the odds of participant enrolment in the main analysis (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval and prediction interval 1.01 to 1.34). Non-PPI components of interventions may have contributed to this effect. In exploratory subgroup analyses, the involvement of people with lived experience of the condition under study was significantly associated with improved enrolment (odds ratio 3.14v1.07; P=0.02). The findings for retention were inconclusive owing to the paucity of eligible studies (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 4.14), for main analysis).ConclusionsThese findings add weight to the case for PPI in clinical trials by indicating that it is likely to improve enrolment of participants, especially if it includes people with lived experience of the health condition under study. Further research is needed to assess which types of PPI work best in particular contexts, the cost effectiveness of PPI, the impact of PPI at earlier stages of trial design, and the impact of PPI interventions specifically targeting retention.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016043808.

scholarly journals Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review

2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 637-650 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jo Brett ◽  
Sophie Staniszewska ◽  
Carole Mockford ◽  
Sandra Herron-Marx ◽  
John Hughes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Care Research ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
The Impact

A Systematic Review of the Impact of Patient and Public Involvement on Service Users, Researchers and Communities

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 387-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jo Brett ◽  
Sophie Staniszewska ◽  
Carole Mockford ◽  
Sandra Herron-Marx ◽  
John Hughes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Service Users ◽  
The Impact

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

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. e026514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie Cook ◽  
Najma Siddiqi ◽  
Maureen Twiddy ◽  
Richard Kenyon
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Community Empowerment ◽  
Expert Advice ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Level Of Involvement ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
The Impact

ObjectivesPatient 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.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesEMBASE, Medline and PsychINFO, along with hand-searching references, grey literature, Google search and expert advice.Eligibility criteriaAny health research with evidence of patient or public involvement, with no language restrictions dated from 1978 to 1 Dec 2017.Data extraction and synthesisData 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.ResultsSixty-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.ConclusionsThe 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.

scholarly journals Defining standards in colorectal optimisation: a Delphi study protocol to achieve international consensus on key standards for colorectal surgery prehabilitation

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e047235
Author(s):  
Iona Pearson ◽  
Sue Blackwell ◽  
Rebecca Fish ◽  
Sarah Daniels ◽  
Malcolm West ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Colorectal Surgery ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
International Consensus ◽  
Elective Colorectal Surgery ◽  
Patient Related Outcome

IntroductionPrehabilitation in colorectal surgery is evolving and may minimise postoperative morbidity and mortality. With many different healthcare professionals contributing to the prehabilitation literature, there is significant variation in reported primary endpoints that restricts comparison. In addition, there has been limited work on patient-related outcome measures suggesting that patients with colorectal cancer needs and issues are being overlooked. The Defining Standards in Colorectal Optimisation Study aims to achieve international consensus from all stakeholders on key standards to provide a framework for reporting future prehabilitation research.Methods and analysisA systematic review will identify key standards reported in trials of prehabilitation in colorectal surgery. Standards that are important to patients will be identified by a patient and public involvement (PPI) event. The longlist of standards generated from the systematic review and PPI event will be used to develop a three-round online Delphi process. This will engage all stakeholders (healthcare professionals and patients) both nationally and internationally. The results of the Delphi will be followed by a face-to-face interactive consensus meeting that will define the final standards for prehabilitation for elective colorectal surgery.Ethics and disseminationThe University of Glasgow College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences Ethics Committee has approved this protocol, which is registered as a study (200190120) with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative. Publication of the standards developed by all stakeholders will increase the potential for comparative research that advances understanding of the clinical application of prehabilitation.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019120381.

scholarly journals Reaching consensus on reporting patient and public involvement (PPI) in research: methods and lessons learned from the development of reporting guidelines

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. e016948 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jo Brett ◽  
Sophie Staniszewska ◽  
Iveta Simera ◽  
Kate Seers ◽  
Carole Mockford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Involvement ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Consensus Development ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Three Phase ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionPatient and public involvement (PPI) is inconsistently reported in health and social care research. Improving the quality of how PPI is reported is critical in developing a higher quality evidence base to gain a better insight into the methods and impact of PPI. This paper describes the methods used to develop and gain consensus on guidelines for reporting PPI in research studies (updated version of the Guidance for Reporting Patient and Public Involvement (GRIPP2)).MethodsThere were three key stages in the development of GRIPP2: identification of key items for the guideline from systematic review evidence of the impact of PPI on health research and health services, a three-phase online Delphi survey with a diverse sample of experts in PPI to gain consensus on included items and a face-to-face consensus meeting to finalise and reach definitive agreement on GRIPP2. Challenges and lessons learnt during the development of the reporting guidelines are reported.DiscussionThe process of reaching consensus is vital within the development of guidelines and policy directions, although debate around how best to reach consensus is still needed. This paper discusses the critical stages of consensus development as applied to the development of consensus for GRIPP2 and discusses the benefits and challenges of consensus development.

scholarly journals P070: Mixed effectiveness of emergency department diversion strategies: a systematic review

CJEM ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (S1) ◽  
pp. S102
Author(s):  
S.W. Kirkland ◽  
A. Soleimani ◽  
B.H. Rowe ◽  
A.S. Newton
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Health Care Services ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Care Utilization ◽  
Alternative Source ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
The Impact

Introduction: Diverting patients away from the emergency department (ED) has been proposed as a solution for reducing ED overcrowding. The objective of this systematic review is to examine the effectiveness of diversion strategies designed to either direct patients seeking care at an ED to an alternative source of care. Methods: Seven electronic databases and grey literature were searched. Randomized/controlled clinical trials and cohort studies assessing the effectiveness of pre-hospital and ED-based diversion interventions with a comparator were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened the studies for relevance, inclusion, and risk of bias. Intervention effects are reported as proportions (%) or relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological and clinical heterogeneity prohibited pooling of study data. Results: From 7,306 citations, ten studies were included. Seven studies evaluated a pre-hospital diversion strategy and three studies evaluated an ED-based diversion strategy. The impact of diversion on subsequent health services was mixed. One study of paramedic practitioners reported increased ED attendance within 7 days (11.9% vs. 9.5%; p=0.049) but no differences in return visits for similar conditions (75.2% vs. 72.1%; p=0.64). The use of paramedic practitioners was associated with an increased risk of subsequent contact with health care services (RR=1.21, 95% CI 1.06, 1.38), while the use of deferred care was associated with no increase in risk of subsequently seeking physician care (RR=1.09, 95% CI 0.23, 5.26). While two studies reported that diverted patients were at significantly reduced risk for hospitalization, two other studies reported no significant differences between diverted or standard care patients. Conclusion: The evidence regarding the impact of pre-hospital and ED-based diversion on ED utilization and subsequent health care utilization is mixed. Additional high-quality comparative effectiveness studies of diversion strategies are required prior to widespread implementation.

scholarly journals Ageing, limb-loss and military veterans: a systematic review of the literature

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (8) ◽  
pp. 1582-1610 ◽  
Author(s):  
NICK CADDICK ◽  
HELEN CULLEN ◽  
AMANDA CLARKE ◽  
MATT FOSSEY ◽  
MICHAEL HILL ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Military Service ◽  
Military Veterans ◽  
Limb Loss ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Long Term Impact ◽  
The Impact

ABSTRACTThe impact of losing a limb in military service extends well beyond initial recovery and rehabilitation, with long-term consequences and challenges requiring health-care commitments across the lifecourse. This paper presents a systematic review of the current state of knowledge regarding the long-term impact of ageing and limb-loss in military veterans. Key databases were systematically searched including: ASSIA, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Medline, Web of Science, PsycArticles/PsychInfo, ProQuest Psychology and ProQuest Sociology Journals, and SPORTSDiscus. Empirical studies which focused on the long-term impact of limb-loss and/or health-care requirements in veterans were included. The search process revealed 30 papers relevant for inclusion. These papers focused broadly on four themes: (a) long-term health outcomes, prosthetics use and quality of life; (b) long-term psycho-social adaptation and coping with limb-loss; (c) disability and identity; and (d) estimating the long-term costs of care and prosthetic provision. Findings present a compelling case for ensuring the long-term care needs and costs of rehabilitation for older limbless veterans are met. A dearth of information on the lived experience of limb-loss and the needs of veterans’ families calls for further research to address these important issues.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document