scholarly journals Patient and public involvement (PPI) in prisons: the involvement of people living in prison in the research process – a systematic scoping review

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha Treacy ◽  
Steven Martin ◽  
Nelum Samarutilake ◽  
Tine Van Bortel
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Care Research ◽  
Health And Social Care

Abstract Background Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in health and social care research is increasingly prevalent and is promoted in policy as a means of improving the validity of research. This also applies to people living in prison and using social care services. Whilst evidence for the effectiveness of PPI was limited and reviews of its application in prisons were not found, the infancy of the evidence base and moral and ethical reasons for involvement mean that PPI continues to be advocated in the community and in prisons. Objectives To conduct a review of the literature regarding the involvement of people or persons living in prison (PLiP) in health and social care research focused on: (i) aims; (ii) types of involvement; (iii) evaluations and findings; (iv) barriers and solutions; and (v) feasibility of undertaking a systematic review. Methods A systematic scoping review was undertaken following Arksey and O’Malley’s (International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8: 19-32, 2005) five-stage framework. A comprehensive search was conducted involving ten electronic databases up until December 2020 using patient involvement and context related search terms. A review-specific spreadsheet was created following the PICO formula, and a narrative synthesis approach was taken to answer the research questions. PRISMA guidelines were followed in reporting. Results 39 papers were selected for inclusion in the review. The majority of these took a ‘participatory’ approach to prisoner involvement, which occurred at most stages during the research process except for more ‘higher’ level research operations (funding applications and project management), and only one study was led by PLiPs. Few studies involved an evaluation of the involvement of PLiP, and this was mostly PLiP or researcher reflections without formal or independent analysis, and largely reported a positive impact. Barriers to the involvement of PLiP coalesced around power differences and prison bureaucracy. Conclusion Given the very high risk of bias arising from the available ‘evaluations’, it was not possible to derive firm conclusions about the effectiveness of PLiP involvement in the research process. In addition, given the state of the evidence base, it was felt that a systematic review would not be feasible until more evaluations were undertaken using a range of methodologies to develop the field further.

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

scholarly journals Impacts of older people’s patient and public involvement in health and social care research: a systematic review

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (6) ◽  
pp. 801-809 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer N Baldwin ◽  
Sara Napier ◽  
Stephen Neville ◽  
Valerie A Wright-St Clair
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Care Research ◽  
Health And Social Care

Developing the evidence base of patient and public involvement in health and social care research: the case for measuring impact

2011 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 628-632 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Staniszewska ◽  
Ade Adebajo ◽  
Rosemary Barber ◽  
Peter Beresford ◽  
Louca-Mai Brady ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Involvement ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Care Research ◽  
Health And Social Care

scholarly journals Involving public and patients in research

2014 ◽  
Vol 96 (5) ◽  
pp. 148-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
V Kasivisvanathan ◽  
Kate Williams
Keyword(s):  
Health Research ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Health And Social Care

What does patient and public involvement (PPI) in research mean? The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) defines ‘patient and public’ as patients, potential patients, their carers, people who use health and social care services, and organisations that represent people who use these services. 1 The term ‘involvement’ refers to an active partnership between patients and public and researchers in the research process.

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 What elements of a systems’ approach to bereavement are most effective in times of mass bereavement? A narrative systematic review with lessons for COVID-19

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (9) ◽  
pp. 1165-1181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Harrop ◽  
Mala Mann ◽  
Lenira Semedo ◽  
Davina Chao ◽  
Lucy E Selman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Disaster Response ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Systems Approach ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
System Level ◽  
Service Improvement ◽  
Current Crisis ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Care Systems

Background: The global COVID-19 pandemic has left health and social care systems facing the challenge of supporting large numbers of bereaved people in difficult and unprecedented social conditions. Previous reviews have not comprehensively synthesised the evidence on the response of health and social care systems to mass bereavement events. Aim: To synthesise the evidence regarding system-level responses to mass bereavement events, including natural and human-made disasters as well as pandemics, to inform service provision and policy during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Design: A rapid systematic review was conducted, with narrative synthesis. The review protocol was registered prospectively ( www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero , CRD 42020180723). Data sources: MEDLINE, Global Health, PsycINFO and Scopus databases were searched for studies published between 2000 and 2020. Reference lists were screened for further relevant publications, and citation tracking was performed. Results: Six studies were included reporting on system responses to mass bereavement following human-made and natural disasters, involving a range of individual and group-based support initiatives. Positive impacts were reported, but study quality was generally low and reliant on data from retrospective evaluation designs. Key features of service delivery were identified: a proactive outreach approach, centrally organised but locally delivered interventions, event-specific professional competencies and an emphasis on psycho-educational content. Conclusion: Despite the limitations in the quantity and quality of the evidence base, consistent messages are identified for bereavement support provision during the pandemic. High quality primary studies are needed to ensure service improvement in the current crisis and to guide future disaster response efforts.

scholarly journals Person-centred medicines optimisation policy in England: an agenda for research on polypharmacy

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (01) ◽  
pp. 24-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet Heaton ◽  
Nicky Britten ◽  
Janet Krska ◽  
Joanne Reeve
Keyword(s):  
Public Involvement ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Patient Experiences ◽  
Patient Perspectives ◽  
Critical Examination ◽  
Medicines Management ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Medicines Optimisation

AimTo examine how patient perspectives and person-centred care values have been represented in documents on medicines optimisation policy in England.BackgroundThere has been growing support in England for a policy of medicines optimisation as a response to the rise of problematic polypharmacy. Conceptually, medicines optimisation differs from the medicines management model of prescribing in being based around the patient rather than processes and systems. This critical examination of current official and independent policy documents questions how central the patient is in them and whether relevant evidence has been utilised in their development.MethodsA documentary analysis of reports on medicines optimisation published by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS), The King’s Fund and National Institute for Health and Social Care Excellence since 2013. The analysis draws on a non-systematic review of research on patient experiences of using medicines.FindingsThe reports varied in their inclusion of patient perspectives and person-centred care values, and in the extent to which they drew on evidence from research on patients’ experiences of polypharmacy and medicines use. In the RPS report, medicines optimisation is represented as being a ‘step change’ from medicines management, in contrast to the other documents which suggest that it is facilitated by the systems and processes that comprise the latter model. Only The King’s Fund report considered evidence from qualitative studies of people’s use of medicines. However, these studies are not without their limitations.We suggest five ways in which researchers could improve this evidence base and so inform the development of future policy: by facilitating reviews of existing research; conducting studies of patient experiences of polypharmacy and multimorbidity; evaluating medicines optimisation interventions; making better use of relevant theories, concepts and tools; and improving patient and public involvement in research and in guideline development.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document