A study of the reporting of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in orthodontic research

Patel, Veena; Shelswell, Jonathan; Hillyard, Neil; Pavitt, Sue; Barber, Sophy

doi:10.1177/1465312520968574

Cited by 9 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We found no evidence of PPIE in any of the 89 trials that we reviewed. Our finding is consistent with similar studies in other clinical disciplines [ 5 – 7 ]. For example, Owyang et al [ 6 ] found evidence of patient and public involvement in only two of the 475 orthopaedic trials they included in their review.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

Reporting of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in clinical trials published in nursing science journals: a descriptive study

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) in research positively affects the relevance, quality, and impact of research. Around 11% of studies published in leading medical journals demonstrate PPIE. The extent of PPIE in nursing research has not been previously studied. Methods A descriptive study of PPIE in clinical trials published in general nursing science journals between 1st January and 31st August 2021. Data were extracted from included studies against the five items of the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2) short form reporting checklist. Results We searched 27 journals and identified 89 randomised controlled clinical trials. There was no statement or evidence of PPIE in any of the included trials. Conclusion Nurse researchers need to ensure that they purposefully involve patients in their research and report this in papers describing study findings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

Reporting of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in clinical trials published in nursing science journals: a descriptive study

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Trials published in nursing science journals were seemingly not supported by funding bodies that required PPI as part of the grant application process. Our observation is somewhat discrepant with other disciplines; for example, Patel et al (2021) reported in their study of PPI that of nine funding agencies that they reviewed, only two (the National Institute for Health Research and Health Care Research Wales) required applicants to demonstrate PPI as part of the application process.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 98%

“…Again, authors of studies in other disciplines reported similar ndings. For example, in the study of PPI in orthodontic research, Patel et al (2021) reported that none of the four journals that they included had guidance on PPI. The exception is the British Medical Journal that actively promotes PPI in papers they publish.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(2021) attempted to check -by emailing authors -if there was PPI in the trial, but this had not been reported in the manuscript. Only 14% responded to the researcher's request, suggesting that directly contacting authors may not be an effective way to check unreported PPI (Patel et al, 2021). Based on this observation, we concluded that there was little merit in contacting authors to check unreported PPI.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…We have identi ed four studies that have examined the extent to which PPI has been integrated into research (Jones et al, 2015;Owyang et al, 2021;Patel et al, 2021;Price, Schroter, et al, 2018). Owyang et al (2021) report a systematic review examining the prevalence and quality of PPI in randomised controlled trials in orthopaedics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reporting of Patient And Public Involvement (PPI) In Clinical Trials Published In Three Leading Nursing Science Journals: A Scientiometric Study

Gray

Brasier

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in identifying research questions, designing trials, and collecting, interpreting, and publishing results may positively affect the relevance, quality and impact of research. The extent of patient and public involvement in nursing clinical trials has not been previously studied. Methods: A Scientiometric study of PPI in clinical trials published in three leading nursing science journals. Randomised controlled clinical trials published in the International Journal of Nursing Studies, the Journal of Clinical Nursing, and the Journal of Advanced Nursing between January and April 2021 were identified by searching the SCOPUS database. Journal author guidelines were also review. Data were extracted against the five items of the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2) reporting checklist. Results: None of the journals required authors to include a patient and public involvement statement in submitted papers or to thank participants in the acknowledgement section of the paper. We included 23 randomised controlled clinical trials, of which half were conducted in Europe and 12 were supported by external grants. Authors thanked participants in the acknowledgement section often (43%) trials. There was no statement or evidence of patient and public involvement in any of the included trials.Conclusion: There was no evidence of PPI in trials published in nursing science journals. Researchers, funders, and journals need to collaborate to change cultural expectations to ensure that PPI is an emended part of clinical research.

show abstract

Reporting of patient involvement: A mixed-methods analysis of current practice in health research publications

Weschke

Franzen

Sierawska

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo evaluate the extent and quality of patient involvement reporting in examples of current practice in health research.DesignMixed-methods study. We used a targeted search strategy across three cohorts to identify health research publications that reported patient involvement: publications published in The BMJ, publications listed in the PCORI database, and publications citing the GRIPP2 reporting checklist for patient involvement or a critical appraisal guideline for user involvement. Publications were coded according to three coding schemes: “Phase of involvement”, the GRIPP2-SF reporting checklist, and the critical appraisal guideline.Outcome measuresThe phase of the study in which patients were actively involved. For the BMJ sample, the proportion of publications that reported patient involvement. The quality of reporting based on the GRIPP2 short form reporting guideline. The quality of patient involvement based on the critical appraisal guideline. Quantitative and qualitative results are reported.ResultsWe included 87 publications that reported patient involvement. Patients were most frequently involved in study design (90% of publications, n=78), followed by study conduct (70%, n=61), and dissemination (40%, n=35). Reporting of patient involvement was often incomplete, e.g., only 39% of publications (n=34) reported the aim of patient involvement. While the methods (56%, n=49) and results (59%, n=51) of involvement were reported more frequently, qualitative analyses showed that reporting was often unspecific and the influence of patients’ input remained vague. Therefore, a systematic assessment of the quality and impact of patient involvement according to the critical appraisal guideline was not feasible across samples.ConclusionsAs patient involvement is increasingly seen as an integral part of the research process and requested by funding bodies, it is essential that researchers receive specific guidance on how to report patient involvement activities. Complete reporting builds the foundation for assessing the quality of patient involvement and its impact on research.PROTOCOLThe protocol was published on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/vntgu/STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONSA targeted search strategy was used to identify examples of patient involvement reporting in a variety of publication types and study designs in health researchA mixed-methods approach allowed for an analysis of both the completeness and quality of patient involvement reportingIn this study, we coded statements reporting on patient involvement in 87 health research publications that may be adapted for further useReporting of patient involvement was insufficiently detailed to allow for a systematic assessment of the quality of patient involvement

show abstract

A study of the reporting of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in orthodontic research

Cited by 9 publications

References 14 publications

Reporting of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in clinical trials published in nursing science journals: a descriptive study

Reporting of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in clinical trials published in nursing science journals: a descriptive study

Reporting of Patient And Public Involvement (PPI) In Clinical Trials Published In Three Leading Nursing Science Journals: A Scientiometric Study

Reporting of patient involvement: A mixed-methods analysis of current practice in health research publications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About