Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co-design pilot
- PMID: 31012259
- PMCID: PMC6737756
- DOI: 10.1111/hex.12888
Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co-design pilot
Abstract
Background: Numerous frameworks for supporting, evaluating and reporting patient and public involvement in research exist. The literature is diverse and theoretically heterogeneous.
Objectives: To identify and synthesize published frameworks, consider whether and how these have been used, and apply design principles to improve usability.
Search strategy: Keyword search of six databases; hand search of eight journals; ancestry and snowball search; requests to experts.
Inclusion criteria: Published, systematic approaches (frameworks) designed to support, evaluate or report on patient or public involvement in health-related research.
Data extraction and synthesis: Data were extracted on provenance; collaborators and sponsors; theoretical basis; lay input; intended user(s) and use(s); topics covered; examples of use; critiques; and updates. We used the Canadian Centre for Excellence on Partnerships with Patients and Public (CEPPP) evaluation tool and hermeneutic methodology to grade and synthesize the frameworks. In five co-design workshops, we tested evidence-based resources based on the review findings.
Results: Our final data set consisted of 65 frameworks, most of which scored highly on the CEPPP tool. They had different provenances, intended purposes, strengths and limitations. We grouped them into five categories: power-focused; priority-setting; study-focused; report-focused; and partnership-focused. Frameworks were used mainly by the groups who developed them. The empirical component of our study generated a structured format and evidence-based facilitator notes for a "build your own framework" co-design workshop.
Conclusion: The plethora of frameworks combined with evidence of limited transferability suggests that a single, off-the-shelf framework may be less useful than a menu of evidence-based resources which stakeholders can use to co-design their own frameworks.
Keywords: codesign; framework; hermeneutic review; patient and public involvement; systematic review.
© 2019 The Authors Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Conflict of interest statement
None declared.
Figures





Similar articles
-
The Effectiveness of Integrated Care Pathways for Adults and Children in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review.JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2009;7(3):80-129. doi: 10.11124/01938924-200907030-00001. JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2009. PMID: 27820426
-
The effectiveness of internet-based e-learning on clinician behavior and patient outcomes: a systematic review protocol.JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Jan;13(1):52-64. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1919. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015. PMID: 26447007
-
Promoting and supporting self-management for adults living in the community with physical chronic illness: A systematic review of the effectiveness and meaningfulness of the patient-practitioner encounter.JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2009;7(13):492-582. doi: 10.11124/01938924-200907130-00001. JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2009. PMID: 27819974
-
Risk management frameworks for human health and environmental risks.J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2003 Nov-Dec;6(6):569-720. doi: 10.1080/10937400390208608. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2003. PMID: 14698953 Review.
-
Meaningful consumer involvement in cancer care: a systematic review on co-design methods and processes.JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2024 Jul 1;8(4):pkae048. doi: 10.1093/jncics/pkae048. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2024. PMID: 38897655 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Striking the right balance: co-designing the Health4Me healthy lifestyle digital health intervention with adolescents.Res Involv Engagem. 2023 Dec 7;9(1):114. doi: 10.1186/s40900-023-00524-4. Res Involv Engagem. 2023. PMID: 38062532 Free PMC article.
-
Valuing All Voices: refining a trauma-informed, intersectional and critical reflexive framework for patient engagement in health research using a qualitative descriptive approach.Res Involv Engagem. 2020 Jul 19;6:42. doi: 10.1186/s40900-020-00217-2. eCollection 2020. Res Involv Engagem. 2020. PMID: 32699647 Free PMC article.
-
Patient and public involvement of young people with a chronic condition: lessons learned and practical tips from a large participatory program.Res Involv Engagem. 2020 Sep 30;6:59. doi: 10.1186/s40900-020-00234-1. eCollection 2020. Res Involv Engagem. 2020. PMID: 33005440 Free PMC article.
-
The Development of Principles for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Preclinical Spinal Cord Research: A Modified Delphi Study.Health Expect. 2024 Aug;27(4):e14130. doi: 10.1111/hex.14130. Health Expect. 2024. PMID: 38962988 Free PMC article.
-
Embedding formal and experiential public and patient involvement training in a structured PhD programme: process and impact evaluation.Res Involv Engagem. 2023 Nov 24;9(1):105. doi: 10.1186/s40900-023-00516-4. Res Involv Engagem. 2023. PMID: 37996882 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Wicks P, Richards T, Denegri S, Godlee F. Patients' roles and rights in research. BMJ. 2018;362:k3193. - PubMed
-
- Ward PR, Thompson J, Barber R, et al. Critical perspectives on ‘consumer involvement' in health research: epistemological dissonance and the know‐do gap. J Sociol. 2010;46(1):63‐82.
-
- Madden M, Speed ES. Beware Zombies and Unicorns: towards critical patient and public involvement in health research in a neoliberal context. Front Sociol. 2017;2:7.
-
- Oliver S, Liabo K, Stewart R, Rees R. Public involvement in research: making sense of the diversity. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2015;20(1):45‐51. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources