Literature DB >> 26335167

Developing and evaluating guidelines for patient and public involvement (PPI) in research.

Katherine Pollard1, Anne-Laure Donskoy, Pamela Moule, Christine Donald, Michelle Lima, Cathy Rice.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: A growing literature reports the benefits and challenges of patient and public involvement (PPI) in research; nevertheless, understanding PPI in research design remains under-developed. The purpose of this paper is to report learning experiences from involving service users as research partners in two projects that developed and evaluated guidelines for good practice in this regard. The main objective was to evaluate these guidelines. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: PPI research guidelines were developed through five workshops involving service users/patients, carers, health and social care professionals/managers and academics. Using a participatory qualitative approach, these guidelines were evaluated through mapping them against the two service user research partners' experience within another project.
FINDINGS: The guidelines were found to be fit for purpose, as they allowed problems to be easily identified and reassurance that required standards were being met. Both academic and service user research partners learned and gained relevant skills. Two service user research partners also found their daily living skills unexpectedly enhanced by project participation. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The PPI guidelines, the authors developed were produced by consensus involving several stakeholders. Service users involved as research partners in the project experienced unanticipated personal benefits.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Evaluation; Guidelines; PPI in research

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26335167     DOI: 10.1108/IJHCQA-01-2014-0001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Health Care Qual Assur        ISSN: 0952-6862


  11 in total

1.  Attributes Used for Cancer Screening Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Rebekah Hall; Antonieta Medina-Lara; Willie Hamilton; Anne E Spencer
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2021-10-21       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Priorities for methodological research on patient and public involvement in clinical trials: A modified Delphi process.

Authors:  Anna Kearney; Paula Williamson; Bridget Young; Heather Bagley; Carrol Gamble; Simon Denegri; Delia Muir; Natalie A Simon; Stephen Thomas; Jim T Elliot; Helen Bulbeck; Joanna C Crocker; Claire Planner; Claire Vale; Mike Clarke; Tim Sprosen; Kerry Woolfall
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2017-06-15       Impact factor: 3.377

3.  Identifying trial recruitment uncertainties using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership - the PRioRiTy (Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials) study.

Authors:  Patricia Healy; Sandra Galvin; Paula R Williamson; Shaun Treweek; Caroline Whiting; Beccy Maeso; Christopher Bray; Peter Brocklehurst; Mary Clarke Moloney; Abdel Douiri; Carrol Gamble; Heidi R Gardner; Derick Mitchell; Derek Stewart; Joan Jordan; Martin O'Donnell; Mike Clarke; Sue H Pavitt; Eleanor Woodford Guegan; Amanda Blatch-Jones; Valerie Smith; Hannah Reay; Declan Devane
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 2.279

4.  Patient involvement in preparing health research peer-reviewed publications or results summaries: a systematic review and evidence-based recommendations.

Authors:  Lauri Arnstein; Anne Clare Wadsworth; Beverley Anne Yamamoto; Richard Stephens; Kawaldip Sehmi; Rachel Jones; Arabella Sargent; Thomas Gegeny; Karen L Woolley
Journal:  Res Involv Engagem       Date:  2020-06-24

5.  What are the most important unanswered research questions in trial retention? A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership: the PRioRiTy II (Prioritising Retention in Randomised Trials) study.

Authors:  Dan Brunsdon; Linda Biesty; Peter Brocklehurst; Valerie Brueton; Declan Devane; Jim Elliott; Sandra Galvin; Carrol Gamble; Heidi Gardner; Patricia Healy; Kerenza Hood; Joan Jordan; Doris Lanz; Beccy Maeso; Amanda Roberts; Imogen Skene; Irene Soulsby; Derek Stewart; David Torgerson; Shaun Treweek; Caroline Whiting; Sharon Wren; Andrew Worrall; Katie Gillies
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2019-10-15       Impact factor: 2.279

6.  Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co-design pilot.

Authors:  Trisha Greenhalgh; Lisa Hinton; Teresa Finlay; Alastair Macfarlane; Nick Fahy; Ben Clyde; Alan Chant
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2019-04-22       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  What do pharmaceutical industry professionals in Europe believe about involving patients and the public in research and development of medicines? A qualitative interview study.

Authors:  Suzanne Parsons; Bella Starling; Christine Mullan-Jensen; Su-Gwan Tham; Kay Warner; Kim Wever
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 8.  Patient engagement in Canada: a scoping review of the 'how' and 'what' of patient engagement in health research.

Authors:  Elizabeth Manafo; Lisa Petermann; Ping Mason-Lai; Virginia Vandall-Walker
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2018-02-07

9.  "A waste of time without patients": The views of patient representatives attending a workshop in evidence-based practice.

Authors:  Astrid Austvoll-Dahlgren; Marit Johansen
Journal:  J Evid Based Med       Date:  2018-06-25

10.  People with lived experience (PWLE) of depression: describing and reflecting on an explicit patient engagement process within depression research priority setting in Alberta, Canada.

Authors:  Lorraine J Breault; Katherine Rittenbach; Kelly Hartle; Robbie Babins-Wagner; Catherine de Beaudrap; Yamile Jasaui; Emily Ardell; Scot E Purdon; Ashton Michael; Ginger Sullivan; Aakai'naimsskai'piiaakii Sharon Ryder Unger; Lorin Vandall-Walker; Brad Necyk; Kiara Krawec; Elizabeth Manafò; Ping Mason-Lai
Journal:  Res Involv Engagem       Date:  2018-10-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.