The GRIPP checklist: Strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 391-399

  Staniszewska, Sophie ^a   Brett, Jo ^a   Mockford, Carole ^a   Barber, Rosemary ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Checklist; Impact; Patient and public involvement (PPI); Quality; Reporting

Indexed keywords

CHECKLIST; HEALTH RESEARCH; IMPACT; PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT (PPI); PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT; REPORTING; ROBUST MEASUREMENT; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; THEMATIC ANALYSIS;

IMAGE QUALITY; PUBLIC HEALTH;

QUALITY CONTROL;

ARTICLE; CHECKLIST; CONTENT VALIDITY; ECONOMIC ASPECT; GUIDANCE FOR REPORTING INVOLVEMENT OF PATIENTS AND PUBLIC CHECLIST; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT;

CHECKLIST; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; HUMANS; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84855909579     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462311000481     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Abma T. Patient participation in health research: Research with and for people with spinal cord injuries. Qual Health Res. 2005;15:1310-1328. (Pubitemid 41824777)
2. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996;276:637-639. (Pubitemid 26278070)
3. Boote J, Telford R, Cooper C. Consumer involvement in health research: A review and research agenda. Health Policy. 2002;61:213-236. (Pubitemid 34669916)
4. Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. The PIRICOM Study: A systematic review of the conceptualisation, measurement, impact and outcomes of patient and public involvement in health and social care research. London: United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration; 2009.
5. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York: CRD, University of York; 2009.
6. Coupland H, Maher L, Enriquez J, et al. Clients or colleagues? Reflections on the process of participatory action research with young injecting drug users. Int J Drug Policy. 2005;16:191-198. (Pubitemid 40800207)
7. EQUATOR Network. https://www. equator-network.org/home/ (accessed Feb 11, 2011).
8. Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J, Hansen HP, Lo Scalzo A, et al. Patients' perspectives in health technology assessment: A route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:334-340.
9. Gagnon M, Desmartis M, Lepage-Savary D, et al. Introducing patients' and the public's perspectives to health technology assessment: A systematic review of international experiences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:31-42.
10. Gauvin F, Abelson J, Giacomini M, et al. Moving cautiously: Public involvement and the health technology assessment community. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:43-49.
11. Health Canada [WWW document]. URL http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/ serviceuser-consult/res-centre/poli-eng.php (accessed February 2011).
12. INVOLVE. http://www.invo.org.uk/. (accessed July 27, 2010).
13. Makela M, Stein K. Mind sharpeners for scientists. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:99-100.
14. McKenzie A, Hanley B. Consumer and community participation in health and medical research. Perth, Western Australia: University of Western Australia; 2007.
15. Mockford C, Staniszewska S, Griffiths F, et al. The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS healthcare. International Journal of Quality in Healthcare. In press.
16. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schultz K. Consort 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c723.
17. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet. 2001;357:1191-1194. (Pubitemid 32378696)
18. National Institutes of Health [WWW document]. URL http://copr.nih.gov/ (accessed April 1, 2011).
19. Research Design Services. http://www.nihr.ac.uk/infrastructure/Pages/ infrastructure-research-design-services.aspx (accessed July 27, 2010).
20. Shea B, Santesso N, Qualman A, et al. Cochrane Musculoskeletal Consumer Group. Consumer-driven health care: Building partnerships in research. Health Expect. 2005;8/4:352-359. (Pubitemid 41641185)
21. Staley K. Exploring impact: Public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2009.
22. Staniszewska S, et al. Developing the evidence base of patient and public involvement in health and social care research: The case for measuring impact. Int J Consum Stud. 2011. in press.
23. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications; 2005.
24. The National Health and Medical Research Council. http://www.nhmrc.gov. au/-files-nhmrc/file/service (accessed April 1, 2011).
25. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36®): I. conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473-483.
26. Wright D, Foster C, Amir Z, Elliott J, Wilson R. Critical appraisal guidelines for assessing the quality and impact of user involvement in research. Health Expect. 2010;13:359-368.