Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Frequency of reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research studies published in a general medical journal: a descriptive study.
Price, Amy; Schroter, Sara; Snow, Rosamund; Hicks, Melissa; Harmston, Rebecca; Staniszewska, Sophie; Parker, Sam; Richards, Tessa.
Afiliação
  • Price A; The BMJ, London, UK.
  • Schroter S; Department for Continuing Education, The University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
  • Snow R; The BMJ, London, UK.
  • Hicks M; Health Experiences Institute, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
  • Harmston R; The BMJ, London, UK.
  • Staniszewska S; The BMJ, London, UK.
  • Parker S; Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
  • Richards T; The BMJ, London, UK.
BMJ Open ; 8(3): e020452, 2018 03 23.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29572398
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES:

While documented plans for patient and public involvement (PPI) in research are required in many grant applications, little is known about how frequently PPI occurs in practice. Low levels of reported PPI may mask actual activity due to limited PPI reporting requirements. This research analysed the frequency and types of reported PPI in the presence and absence of a journal requirement to include this information. DESIGN AND

SETTING:

A before and after comparison of PPI reported in research papers published in The BMJ before and 1 year after the introduction of a journal policy requiring authors to report if and how they involved patients and the public within their papers.

RESULTS:

Between 1 June 2013 and 31 May 2014, The BMJ published 189 research papers and 1 (0.5%) reported PPI activity. From 1 June 2015 to 31 May 2016, following the introduction of the policy, The BMJ published 152 research papers of which 16 (11%) reported PPI activity. Patients contributed to grant applications in addition to designing studies through to coauthorship and participation in study dissemination. Patient contributors were often not fully acknowledged; 6 of 17 (35%) papers acknowledged their contributions and 2 (12%) included them as coauthors.

CONCLUSIONS:

Infrequent reporting of PPI activity does not appear to be purely due to a failure of documentation. Reporting of PPI activity increased after the introduction of The BMJ's policy, but activity both before and after was low and reporting was inconsistent in quality. Journals, funders and research institutions should collaborate to move us from the current situation where PPI is an optional extra to one where PPI is fully embedded in practice throughout the research process.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Participação do Paciente / Publicações / Relatório de Pesquisa Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Participação do Paciente / Publicações / Relatório de Pesquisa Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article