SynthesisBMC health services research2024
Systematic review on the frequency and quality of reporting patient and public involvement in patient safety research.
Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Patient and public involvement in randomized trials of lifestyle intervention among pregnant women with obesity: An umbrella review.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Pooled it
- Patient satisfaction with infection prevention and control interventions in acute hospitals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluating Process and Outcomes of Public Involvement in Applied Health and Social Care Research: A Rapid Systematic Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Pooled it
- Involving a black woman patient and public involvement group in maternal health methodology research: learning from the PROMISE Study.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Evaluating Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement Activity Within the 3DPiPPIn Trial: A Qualitative Exploration of Contributors' Perspectives on Their Impact.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Patient and public involvement and engagement in target trial emulation framework: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Assessing unstated assumptions of patient and public involvement in palliative care with story completion and typology analysis.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- Patient and public involvement (PPI) reporting in maternal and neonatal clinical trials: an exploratory review.Trials · 2026Review
- Evaluation Tools for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Health Research: A Scoping Review.The patient · 2026Article
- Public Involvement in a Systematic Review Project: Reporting Our Approach Using the ACTIVE Framework.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- 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 · 2025Article
- Patient involvement in clinical trials: a paradigm shift in research.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Article
- Talking placebo: a qualitative study of patients' attitudes toward open-label placebo implementation into clinical practice.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, patient and public involvement (PPI) in research has significantly increased; however, the reporting of PPI remains poor. The Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2) was developed to enhance the quality and consistency of PPI reporting. The objective of this systematic review is to identify the frequency and quality of PPI reporting in patient safety (PS) research using the GRIPP2 checklist.
methodsSearches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from 2018 to December, 2023. Studies on PPI in PS research were included. We included empirical qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, and case studies. Only articles published in peer-reviewed journals in English were included. The quality of PPI reporting was assessed using the short form of the (GRIPP2-SF) checklist.
resultsA total of 8561 studies were retrieved from database searches, updates, and reference checks, of which 82 met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. Major PS topics were related to medication safety, general PS, and fall prevention. Patient representatives, advocates, patient advisory groups, patients, service users, and health consumers were the most involved. The main involvement across the studies was in commenting on or developing research materials. Only 6.1% (n = 5) of the studies reported PPI as per the GRIPP2 checklist. Regarding the quality of reporting following the GRIPP2-SF criteria, our findings show sub-optimal reporting mainly due to failures in: critically reflecting on PPI in the study; reporting the aim of PPI in the study; and reporting the extent to which PPI influenced the study overall.
conclusionsOur review shows a low frequency of PPI reporting in PS research using the GRIPP2 checklist. Furthermore, it reveals a sub-optimal quality in PPI reporting following GRIPP2-SF items. Researchers, funders, publishers, and journals need to promote consistent and transparent PPI reporting following internationally developed reporting guidelines such as the GRIPP2. Evidence-based guidelines for reporting PPI should be encouraged and supported as it helps future researchers to plan and report PPI more effectively.
trial registrationThe review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023450715).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.