Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36273226›Full record

ArticleBMC rheumatology2022

Patient and public involvement in implementation of evidence-based guidance for musculoskeletal conditions: a scoping review of current advances and gaps.

Opeyemi O Babatunde, Shoba Dawson, June Brammar, Linda Parton, Krysia Dziedzic, Adewale O Adebajo

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC rheumatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Opeyemi O BabatundeSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK. o.babatunde@keele.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5064-6446
Shoba DawsonCentre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
June BrammarHaywood Academic Rheumatology Centre, Midlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Stoke on Trent, ST6 7AG, UK.
Linda PartonSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK.
Krysia DziedzicSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK.
Adewale O AdebajoFaculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Keele University · GBMidlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

Versus Arthritis 21019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advances in musculoskeletal (MSK) research have been successfully curated into widely endorsed evidence-based recommendations and guidelines. However, there continues to exist significant variations in care and quality of care, and the global health and socio-economic burdens associated with MSK conditions continues to increase. Limited accessibility, and applicability of guideline recommendations have been suggested as contributory factors to less than adequate guideline implementation. Since patient and public involvement (PPI) is being credited with increasing relevance, dissemination and uptake of MSK research, the success of guidelines implementation strategies may also be maximised through increasing opportunities for PPI input. We therefore conducted a scoping review of literature to explore PPI in implementation of evidence-based guidance for MSK conditions. A comprehensive search was used to identify relevant literature in three databases (Medline, Embase, Cinahl) and two large repositories (WHO, G-IN), supplemented by grey literature search. Eligibility was determined with criteria established a priori and narrative synthesis was used to summarise PPI activities, contexts, and impact on implementation of MSK related evidence-based guidance across ten eligible studies (one from a low-and middle-income country LMIC). A prevalence of low-level PPI (mainly consultative activities) was found in the current literature and may partly account for current experiences of significant variations and quality of care for MSK patients. The success of PPI in MSK research may be lessened by the oversight of PPI in implementation. This has implications for both high- and low-resource healthcare systems, especially in LMICs where evidence is limited. Patient and public partnership for mobilising knowledge, maximising guideline uptake, and bridging the research-practice gap particularly in low resource settings remain important and should extend beyond PPI in research and guideline dissemination activities only. This review is a clarion call to stakeholders, and all involved, to transform PPI in MSK research into real world benefits through implementation approaches underpinned by patient and public partnerships. We anticipate that this will enhance and drive quality improvements in MSK care with patients and for patients across health and care settings.

Indexed as

EngagementEvidence-based recommendationsGuidelinesImplementationInvolvementKnowledge mobilisationMusculoskeletal conditionsPatient and public

Identifiers

PMID36273226
PMCPMC9588238
OpenAlexW4307134455

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.