GRIPP2 reporting checklists: Tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research

Research Involvement and Engagement

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Staniszewska, S ^a   Brett, J ^b   Simera, I ^c   Seers, K ^a   Mockford, C ^a   Goodlad, S ^d   Altman, D G ^e   Moher, D ^f   Barber, R ^g   Denegri, S ^h   Entwistle, A ^a   Littlejohns, P ⁱ   Morris, C ^j   Suleman, R ^a   Thomas, V ^k   Tysall, C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

^b OXFORD BROOKES UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^d Institute for Clean Growth and Future Mobility   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^f OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^g UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^h UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^j UNIVERSITY OF EXETER MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

^k NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE   (United Kingdom)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85067251711     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20567529     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s40900-017-0062-2     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Staniszewska S, Brett J, Mockford C, Barber R. The GRIPP checklist: strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:391–9. doi:10.1017/S0266462311000481.
2. Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2014;17:637–50. doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x.
3. Mockford C, Staniszewska S, Griffiths F, Herron-Marx S. The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care. 2012;24:28–38. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzr066.
4. Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. Patient. 2014;7:387–95. doi:10.1007/s40271-014-0065-0.
5. Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000217. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217.
6. Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:89. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-89.
7. Shippee ND, Domecq Garces JP, Prutsky Lopez GJ, et al. Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesised framework. Health Expect. 2013;18:1151–66.
8. Gagnon MP, 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. doi:10.1017/S0266462310001315.
9. Staley K. Exploring impact: public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2009. http://www.invo.org.uk/posttypepublication/exploring-impact-public-involvement-in-nhs-public-health-and-social-care-research/.
10. National Institute for Health. Going the extra mile: improving the nation’s health and wellbeing through public involvement in research. 2015. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/about-us/documents/Extra%20Mile2.pdf.
11. Tarrow S. Power in movement: Social movements, collective action and politics: Cambridge University Press; 1994.
12. Health Technology Assessment International Patient and Citizen Involvement subgroup. http://www.htai.org/interest-groups/patient-and-citizen-involvement.html.
13. Moher D. Reporting research results: a moral obligation for all researchers. Can J Anaesth. 2007;54:331–5. doi:10.1007/BF03022653.
14. Moher D. Guidelines for reporting health care research: advancing the clarity and transparency of scientific reporting. Can J Anaesth. 2009;56:96–101. doi:10.1007/s12630-008-9027-0.
15. Little J, Higgins J, Ioannidis JPA, et al. STROBE Extension to Generic Association Studies. STREGA (STrengthening the reporting of generic association studies). PLoS Med. 2009;6:e22. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000022.
16. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:40–4. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-138-1-200301070-00010.
17. Brett J, Staniszewska S, Simera I, et al. Reaching consensus on reporting patient and public involvement (PPI): lessons learned from the development of reporting guidelines. Submitted (forthcoming).
18. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
19. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869. doi:10.1136/bmj.c869.
20. Kuhn TS. The structure of scientific Revolutions. 50th anniversary. Ian Hacking (Introd.). 4th ed: University of Chicago Press; 2012. p. 264. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226458144.001.0001.
21. Wilson P, Mathie E, Keenan J, et al. ReseArch with Patient and Public involvement: a RealisT evaluation—the RAPPORT study: Health Services and Delivery Research; 2015. p. 3. doi:10.3310/hsdr03380.
22. Stephens R, Staniszewska S. One small step…. Research Involvement and Engagement; 2015. p. 1. doi: 10.1186/s40900-015-0005-8.