GRIPP2 (short form and long form) is the first international guidance for reporting of patient and public involvement in health and social care research. This paper describes the development of the GRIPP2 reporting checklists, which aim to improve the quality, transparency, and consistency of the international patient and public involvement (PPI) evidence base, to ensure that PPI practice is based on the best evidence

BackgroundWhile the patient and public involvement (PPI) evidence base has expanded over the past decade, the quality of reporting within papers is often inconsistent, limiting our understanding of how it works, in what context, for whom, and why.ObjectiveTo develop international consensus on the key items to report to enhance the quality, transparency, and consistency of the PPI evidence base. To collaboratively involve patients as research partners at all stages in the development of GRIPP2.MethodsThe EQUATOR method for developing reporting guidelines was used. The original GRIPP (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public) checklist was revised, based on updated systematic review evidence. A three round Delphi survey was used to develop consensus on items to be included in the guideline. A subsequent face-to-face meeting produced agreement on items not reaching consensus during the Delphi process.ResultsOne hundred forty-three participants agreed to participate in round one, with an 86% (123/143) response for round two and a 78% (112/143) response for round three. The Delphi survey identified the need for long form (LF) and short form (SF) versions. GRIPP2-LF includes 34 items on aims, definitions, concepts and theory, methods, stages and nature of involvement, context, capture or measurement of impact, outcomes, economic assessment, and reflections and is suitable for studies where the main focus is PPI. GRIPP2-SF includes five items on aims, methods, results, outcomes, and critical perspective and is suitable for studies where PPI is a secondary focus.ConclusionsGRIPP2-LF and GRIPP2-SF represent the first international evidence based, consensus informed guidance for reporting patient and public involvement in research. Both versions of GRIPP2 aim to improve the quality, transparency, and consistency of the international PPI evidence base, to ensure PPI practice is based on the best evidence. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on The BMJ and Research Involvement and Engagement journal websites.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40900-017-0062-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Despite attention paid to substance use during pregnancy, understandings of young Aboriginal women's experiences based on their perspectives have been virtually absent in the published literature. This study's objective was to understand the life experiences of pregnant-involved young Aboriginal women with alcohol and drugs. Semi-structured interviews to gather life histories were conducted with 23 young Aboriginal women who had experiences with pregnancy, and alcohol and drug use. Transcribed interviews were analyzed for themes to describe the social and historical contexts of women's experiences and their self-representations. The findings detail women's strategies for survival, inner strength, and capacities for love, healing, and resilience. Themes included the following: intersectional identities, life histories of trauma (abuse, violence, and neglect; intergenerational trauma; separations and connections), the ever-presence of alcohol and drugs, and the highs and lows of pregnancy and mothering. The findings have implications for guiding policy and interventions for supporting women and their families.

The main aim of health technology assessment (HTA) is to inform decision making by health care policy makers. It is a systematic process that evaluates the use of health technologies and generally involves a critical review of international evidence related to clinical effectiveness of the health technology vs. the best standard of care. It can also include an evaluation of cost effectiveness, and social and ethical impacts in the local health care system. The HTA process advises whether or not a health technology should be used, and if so, how it is best used and which patients are most likely to benefit from it. The importance of patient involvement in HTA is becoming widely recognized, for scientific and democratic reasons. The extent of patient involvement in HTA varies considerably across Europe. Commonly HTA is still focused on quantitative evidence to determine clinical and/or cost effectiveness, but the interest in understanding patients' experiences and preferences is increasing. Some HTA bodies provide support for participation in their processes, but again this varies widely across Europe. The involvement of patients in HTA is determined at the national and regional level, and is not subject to any European-wide legislation. The guidance text presented in this article was developed as part of the work of the European Patients' Academy on Therapeutic Innovation (EUPATI) and covers the interaction between HTA bodies and patients and their representatives when medicines are being assessed. Other EUPATI guidance documents relate to patient involvement in pharmaceutical industry-led research and development, ethics committees, and regulatory authorities. The guidance provides recommendations for activities to support patient involvement in HTA bodies and specific guidance for individual HTA processes. It seeks to improve patient involvement, using the outcomes of published research and consensus-building exercises. It also draws on good practice examples from individual HTA bodies. The guidance is not intended to be prescriptive and should be used according to specific circumstances, national legislation, or the unique needs of each interaction. This article represents the formal publication of the HTA guidance text with discussion about recent progress in, and continuing barriers to, patient involvement in HTA.

ObjectiveAlthough β-blockers are an established therapy in heart failure (HF) guidelines, including for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), there remain concerns regarding bronchoconstriction even with cardioselective β-blockers. We wished to assess the real-life use of β-blockers for patients with HF and comorbid COPD.MethodsWe evaluated data from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database over a period of 1 year for co-prescribing of β-blockers with either an ACE inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin-2 receptor blocker (ARB) in patients with HF alone versus HF+COPD. Association with inhaler therapy was also evaluated.ResultsWe identified 89 861 patients with COPD, 24 237 with HF and 10 853 with both conditions. In patients with HF+COPD, the mean age was 79 years; 60% were male, and 27% had prior myocardial infarction. Of patients with HF+COPD, 22% were taking a β-blocker in conjunction with either ACEI/ARB (n=2416) compared with 41% of patients with HF only (n=10 002) (adjusted OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.58, p<0.001). Among HF+COPD patients taking inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) with long-acting β-agonist (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonist, 27% of patients were taking an ACEI/ARB with β-blockers (n=778) versus 46% taking an ACEI/ARB without β-blockers (n=1316). Corresponding figures for those patients taking ICS/LABA were 20% (n=583) versus 48% (n=1367), respectively.ConclusionsThese data indicate a substantial unmet need for patients with COPD who should be prescribed β-blockers more often for concomitant HF.

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.

Clinical guidelines and health technology assessments are valuable instruments to improve the quality of healthcare delivery and aim to integrate the best available evidence with real-world, expert context. The role of patient and public involvement in their development has grown in recent decades, and this article considers the international literature exploring aspects of this participation, including the integration of experiential and scientific knowledge, recruitment strategies, models of involvement, stages of involvement, and methods of evaluation. These developments have been underpinned by the parallel rise of public involvement and evidence-based medicine as important concepts in health policy. Improving the recruitment of guideline group chairs, widening evidence reviews to include patient preference studies, adapting guidance presentation to highlight patient preference points and providing clearer instructions on how patient organisations can submit their intelligence are emerging proposals that may further enhance patient and public involvement in their processes.