Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Oct;27(10):858-864.
doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006954. Epub 2018 Apr 17.

Role of patient and public involvement in implementation research: a consensus study

Kara A Gray-Burrows  1 , Thomas A Willis  2 , Robbie Foy  2 , Martin Rathfelder  3 , Pauline Bland  3 , Allison Chin  3 , Susan Hodgson  3 , Gus Ibegbuna  3 , Graham Prestwich  3 , Kirsty Samuel  3 , Laurence Wood  3 , Farhat Yaqoob  3 , Rosemary R C McEachan  4
Affiliations

Role of patient and public involvement in implementation research: a consensus study

Kara A Gray-Burrows et al. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Oct.

Abstract

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is often an essential requirement for research funding. Distinctions can be drawn between clinical research, which generally focuses on patients, and implementation research, which generally focuses on health professional behaviour. There is uncertainty about the role of PPI in this latter field. We explored and defined the roles of PPI in implementation research to inform relevant good practice guidance.

Methods: We used a structured consensus process using a convenience sample panel of nine experienced PPI and two researcher members. We drew on available literature to identify 21 PPI research roles. The panel rated their agreement with roles independently online in relation to both implementation and clinical research. Disagreements were discussed at a face-to-face meeting prior to a second online rating of all roles. Median scores were calculated and a final meeting held to review findings and consider recommendations.

Results: Ten panellists completed the consensus process. For clinical research, there was strong support and consensus for the role of PPI throughout most of the research process. For implementation research, there were eight roles with consensus and strong support, seven roles with consensus but weaker support and six roles with no consensus. There were more disagreements relating to PPI roles in implementation research compared with clinical research. PPI was rated as contributing less to the design and management of implementation research than for clinical research.

Conclusions: The roles of PPI need to be tailored according to the nature of research to ensure authentic and appropriate involvement. We provide a framework to guide the planning, conduct and reporting of PPI in implementation research, and encourage further research to evaluate its use.

Keywords: Implementation research; clinical research; consensus panel; health professionals; patient and public involvement (PPI).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

References

    1. Absolom K, Holch P, Woroncow B, et al. . Beyond lip service and box ticking: how effective patient engagement is integral to the development and delivery of patient-reported outcomes. Qual Life Res 2015;24:1077–85. 10.1007/s11136-014-0909-z - DOI - PubMed
    1. INVOLVE. The INVOLVE register. 2016. http://www.invo.org.uk/ (accessed 12 Mar 2018).
    1. INVOLVE. Briefing notes for researchers: involving the public in NHS, public health and social care research: INVOLVE, 2012.
    1. 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. 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. South A, Hanley B, Gafos M, et al. . Models and impact of patient and public involvement in studies carried out by the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London: findings from ten case studies. Trials 2016;17:376 10.1186/s13063-016-1488-9 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types