Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35227330›Full record

ReviewResearch involvement and engagement2022

To what extent are patients involved in researching safety in acute mental healthcare?

Lyn Brierley-Jones, Lauren Ramsey, Krysia Canvin, Sarah Kendal, John Baker

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Research involvement and engagement, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Conceptual and practical challenges associated with understanding patient safety within community-based mental health services.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Co-Authoring and Reporting on Lived Experience Engagement in Mental Health and/or Substance Research: A Qualitative Study and Guidance Document.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Lived experience and family engagement in psychiatry research: A scoping review of reviews.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  10. Towards understanding and improving medication safety for patients with mental illness in primary care: A multimethod study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lyn Brierley-JonesSchool of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Lauren RamseyYorkshire Quality and Safety Research Group, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford, UK.
Krysia CanvinLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, Leeds, UK.
Sarah KendalSchool of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
John BakerSchool of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. j.baker@leeds.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9985-9875

Funding

Health Services and Delivery Research Programme NIHR128070
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a growing need to involve patients in the development of patient safety interventions. Mental health services, despite their strong history of patient involvement, have been slow to develop patient safety interventions, particularly in inpatient settings.

methodsA systematic search was undertaken of both academic and grey literature. Whilst no lay member of the team worked directly on the review, they were part of the project steering group which provided oversight throughout the review process. This included people with lived experience of mental health services. From a research perspective the main focus for lay members was in co-producing the digital technology, the key project output. Smits et al.'s (Res Involv Engagem 6:1-30, 2020) Involvement Matrix was used to taxonomise levels of patient involvement. Studies were included if they were set in any inpatient mental health care context regardless of design. The quality of all selected studies was appraised using Mixed Methods Appraisal Methodology (MMAT).

resultsFifty-two studies were classified, synthesised and their levels of patient involvement in the research and development of patient safety interventions were taxonomised. Almost two-thirds of studies (n = 33) researched reducing restrictive practices. Only four studies reported engaging patients in the research process as decision-makers, with the remaining studies divided almost equally between engaging patients in the research process as partners, advisors and co-thinkers. Just under half of all studies engaged patients in just one stage of the research process.

conclusionInvolvement of patients in researching patient safety and developing interventions in an inpatient mental health context seems diverse in its nature. Researchers need to both more fully consider and better describe their approaches to involving patients in safety research in inpatient mental health. Doing so will likely lead to the development of higher quality safety interventions.

Indexed as

InpatientInterventionsMental healthPatient involvementResearchSafety

Identifiers

PMID35227330
PMCPMC8886877

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.