Identification and Reporting of Patient and Public Partner Authorship on Knowledge Syntheses: Rapid Review
- PMID: 34110293
- PMCID: PMC8235296
- DOI: 10.2196/27141
Identification and Reporting of Patient and Public Partner Authorship on Knowledge Syntheses: Rapid Review
Abstract
Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research is an area of growing interest. Several studies have examined the use and impact of PPI in knowledge syntheses (systematic, scoping, and related reviews); however, few studies have focused specifically on the patient or public coauthorship of such reviews.
Objective: This study seeks to identify published systematic and scoping reviews coauthored by patient or public partners and examine the characteristics of these coauthored reviews, such as which journals publish them, geographic location of research teams, and terms used to describe patient or public partner authors in affiliations, abstracts, or article text.
Methods: We searched CAB Direct, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), and PsycInfo from 2011 to May 2019, with a supplementary search of several PPI-focused databases. We refined the Ovid MEDLINE search by examining frequently used words and phrases in relevant search results and searched Ovid MEDLINE using the modified search strategy in June 2020.
Results: We screened 13,998 results and found 37 studies that met our inclusion criteria. In line with other PPI research, we found that a wide range of terms were used for patient and public authors in author affiliations. In some cases, partners were easy to identify with titles such as patient, caregiver or consumer representative, patient partner, expert by experience, citizen researcher, or public contributor. In 11% (n=4) of studies, they were identified as members of a panel or advisory council. In 27% (n=10) of articles, it was either impossible or difficult to tell whether an author was a partner solely from the affiliation, and confirmation was found elsewhere in the article. We also investigated where in the reviews the partner coauthors' roles were described, and when possible, what their specific roles were. Often, there was little or no information about which review tasks the partner coauthors contributed to. Furthermore, only 14% (5/37) of reviews mentioned patient or public involvement as authors in the abstract; involvement was often only indicated in the author affiliation field or in the review text (most often in the methods or contributions section).
Conclusions: Our findings add to the evidence that searching for coproduced research is difficult because of the diversity of terms used to describe patient and public partners, and the lack of consistent, detailed reporting about PPI. For better discoverability, we recommend ensuring that patient and public authorships are indicated in commonly searched database fields. When patient and public-authored research is easier to find, its impact will be easier to measure.
Keywords: PPI; authorship; coproduction; participatory medicine; participatory research; patient and public involvement; patient education; patient involvement; systematic review.
©Ursula Ellis, Vanessa Kitchin, Mathew Vis-Dunbar. Originally published in Journal of Participatory Medicine (https://jopm.jmir.org), 10.06.2021.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflicts of Interest: None declared.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Prevalence of patient partner authorship and acknowledgment in child health research publications: an umbrella review.J Clin Epidemiol. 2023 Dec;164:35-44. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.10.012. Epub 2023 Oct 21. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023. PMID: 37871836 Review.
-
Roles, outcomes, and enablers within research partnerships: A rapid review of the literature on patient and public involvement and engagement in health research.Res Involv Engagem. 2023 Jun 15;9(1):43. doi: 10.1186/s40900-023-00448-z. Res Involv Engagem. 2023. PMID: 37322525 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022. PMID: 36321557 Free PMC article.
-
Hidden in plain sight? Identifying patient-authored publications.Res Involv Engagem. 2022 Apr 11;8(1):12. doi: 10.1186/s40900-022-00346-w. Res Involv Engagem. 2022. PMID: 35410628 Free PMC article.
-
Beyond the black stump: rapid reviews of health research issues affecting regional, rural and remote Australia.Med J Aust. 2020 Dec;213 Suppl 11:S3-S32.e1. doi: 10.5694/mja2.50881. Med J Aust. 2020. PMID: 33314144
Cited by
-
Producing knowledge together: a participatory approach to synthesising research across a large-scale collaboration in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health.Health Res Policy Syst. 2024 Jan 3;22(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s12961-023-01087-2. Health Res Policy Syst. 2024. PMID: 38172892 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Recommended characteristics and processes for writing lay summaries of healthcare evidence: a co-created scoping review and consultation exercise.Res Involv Engagem. 2023 Dec 20;9(1):121. doi: 10.1186/s40900-023-00531-5. Res Involv Engagem. 2023. PMID: 38124104 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Recognizing patient partner contributions to health research: a systematic review of reported practices.Res Involv Engagem. 2023 Sep 9;9(1):80. doi: 10.1186/s40900-023-00488-5. Res Involv Engagem. 2023. PMID: 37689741 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Reporting of PPI and the MCID in phase III/IV randomised controlled trials-a systematic review.Trials. 2023 May 31;24(1):370. doi: 10.1186/s13063-023-07367-0. Trials. 2023. PMID: 37259102 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Evaluation of the quality of patient involvement in a patient-led analysis of the lived experience of a rare disease.Res Involv Engagem. 2023 May 25;9(1):35. doi: 10.1186/s40900-023-00445-2. Res Involv Engagem. 2023. PMID: 37231525 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, Altman DG, Moher D, Barber R, Denegri S, Entwistle A, Littlejohns P, Morris C, Suleman R, Thomas V, Tysall C. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3:13. doi: 10.1186/s40900-017-0062-2. https://researchinvolvement.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40900-01... - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- Smits D, van Meeteren K, Klem M, Alsem M, Ketelaar M. Designing a tool to support patient and public involvement in research projects: the Involvement Matrix. Res Involv Engagem. 2020;6:30. doi: 10.1186/s40900-020-00188-4. https://researchinvolvement.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40900-02... - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- Greenhalgh T, Hinton L, Finlay T, Macfarlane A, Fahy N, Clyde B, Chant A. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: systematic review and co-design pilot. Health Expect. 2019 Aug;22(4):785–801. doi: 10.1111/hex.12888. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/31012259 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Publication types
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous