Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37259130›Full record

ReviewResearch involvement and engagement2023

A proposal to embed patient and public involvement within qualitative data collection and analysis phases of a primary care based implementation study.

Alice Moult, Carmel McGrath, Kate Lippiett, Caroline Coope, Simon Chilcott, Cindy Mann, Nicola Evans, Andrew Turner, Krysia Dziedzic, M C Portillo and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Research involvement and engagement, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Alice MoultImpact Accelerator Unit, Keele University, Newcastle-Under-Lyme, ST5 5BG, UK. a.moult@keele.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9424-5660
Carmel McGrathNIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7777-2904
Kate LippiettSchool of Health Sciences, NIHR ARC Wessex, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Caroline CoopeCentre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, UK.
Simon ChilcottNational Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration West (NIHR ARC West), University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, BS1 2NT, UK.
Cindy MannCentre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, UK.
Nicola EvansImpact Accelerator Unit, Keele University, Newcastle-Under-Lyme, ST5 5BG, UK.
Andrew TurnerNational Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration West (NIHR ARC West), University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, BS1 2NT, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7121-3121
Krysia DziedzicImpact Accelerator Unit, Keele University, Newcastle-Under-Lyme, ST5 5BG, UK.
M C PortilloSchool of Health Sciences, NIHR ARC Wessex, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1583-6612
Rachel JohnsonCentre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0266-3433
At Bristol · GBKeele University · GBUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Southampton · GBUniversity of the West of England · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly seen as essential to health service research. There are strong moral and ethical arguments for good quality PPI. Despite the development of guidance aimed at addressing the inconsistent reporting of PPI activities within research, little progress has been made in documenting the steps taken to undertake PPI and how it influences the direction of a study. Without this information, there are minimal opportunities to share learnings across projects and strengthen future PPI practices. The aim of this paper is to present details on the processes and activities planned to integrate PPI into the qualitative research component of a mixed-methods, multi-site study evaluating the implementation of a smart template to promote personalised primary care for patients with multiple long-term conditions.

methodsThis proposal describes the processes and activities planned to integrate PPI into the development and piloting of qualitative data collection tools (topic guides for both practice staff and patients) and a tailored data analysis package developed for PPI members incorporating broad concepts and specific methods of qualitative data analysis. DISCUSSION: Outputs relating to PPI activity may include clear, concise and suitably worded topic guides for qualitative interviews. Piloting of the topic guides via mock interviews will further develop researchers' skills including sensitisation to the experiences of participants being interviewed. Working with PPI members when analysing the qualitative data aims to provide reciprocal learning opportunities and may contribute to improving the overall rigour of the data analysis. The intent of publishing proposed PPI activities within this project is to inform the future delivery of high quality PPI.

Indexed as

Data analysisData collectionPatient and public involvementQualitative

Identifiers

PMID37259130
PMCPMC10233873
OpenAlexW4378901526

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.