Patient and Public Involvement in Occupational Therapy Health Research: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research has the potential to improve research validity and relevance. Objectives: To explore how PPI has been carried out and how its impacts have been reported in occupational therapy (OT) health research. Methodology: Scoping review based on a search in four databases for OT research with descriptions of PPI, published between 2010 and 2020. Results: Across the 17 included studies PPI was reported in all stages of research. Descriptions of how PPI was carried out varied across the studies, and details with respect to the kind of approach used were lacking. Positive impacts on research design, research ethics, public collaborators and researchers were reported, but only anecdotally. Reflections and challenges related to PPI were also addressed. Implications: In future studies, comprehensiveness and consistency is needed to document the diversity of how PPI is carried out in OT health research.

Patient and public involvement in research published in the British Journal of Occupational Therapy 2015–2021: A scoping review

“…These findings represent what was reported by study authors and, as there was no previous requirement for BJOT authors to describe public involvement in the manuscript, the evidence is dependent on authors’ decisions to prioritise this. These findings on low and inconsistent reporting are comparable with a review of the Australian Occupational Therapy Journal (Cox et al, 2021) and in occupational therapy health research (Røssvoll et al, 2022) which suggest that there are low levels of reporting of PPI in occupational therapy research internationally. Funders have a key role to play in promoting public involvement in research.…”

“…Previous studies have sought to explore the scope of public involvement in occupational therapy health research (Røssvoll et al, 2022); in the Australian Occupational Therapy Journal (Cox et al, 2021) and more widely (Garfield et al, 2016; Price et al, 2018; Shen et al, 2017; Smith et al, 2008), and an issue raised by these authors is that limited and inconsistent reporting of public involvement practices is widespread. It is not clear whether this is due to low levels of involvement or low levels of reporting.…”

Public and professional involvement in a systematic review investigating the impact of occupational therapy on the self-management of rheumatoid arthritis

“…Public involvement in occupational therapy research is becoming more common. However, few formal evaluations for involvement exist; those that do are anecdotal and predominantly focused on qualitative research involving public/ patients and not professionals (Røssvoll et al, 2022). Our evaluation of PHPI contributes to the evidence base by reporting findings from a mixed methods systematic review involving people with RA and occupational therapists at critical stages of the review process.…”

“…A priority of occupational therapy research is to support meaningful occupations within and throughout an individual's life, their communities and wider society (Nayar and Stanley, 2015). Involving service users and the public in research is fundamental to client-centred occupational therapy practice (Hammell and Iwama, 2012;Røssvoll et al, 2022). Understanding and evaluating what works and does not work in PPI for occupational therapy research contributes to the development of the profession's evidence base.…”

“…Although research evaluating the methods and benefits of PPI in research exists (Domecq et al, 2014; Greenhalgh et al, 2019; Wilson et al, 2015), there are fewer examples of reporting and/or evaluating this in systematic reviews in occupational therapy (Backman et al, 2022; Williamson et al, 2023). One such example is a recent scoping review by Røssvoll et al (2022) exploring how PPI has been conducted and evaluated in occupational therapy research. PPI varied across 17 studies (14 qualitative), with evaluations predominantly positive for co-production in research methods and ethics by public partners, and researchers.…”