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
. 2022 Jun;25(3):840-855.
doi: 10.1111/hex.13437. Epub 2022 Feb 17.

Mapping the role of patient and public involvement during the different stages of healthcare innovation: A scoping review

Victoria Cluley  1 , Alexandra Ziemann  2 , Claire Feeley  3 , Ellinor K Olander  4 , Shani Shamah  5 , Charitini Stavropoulou  2   6
Affiliations

Mapping the role of patient and public involvement during the different stages of healthcare innovation: A scoping review

Victoria Cluley et al. Health Expect. 2022 Jun.

Abstract

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) has become increasingly important in the development, delivery and improvement of healthcare. PPI is used in healthcare innovation; yet, how it is used has been under-reported. The aim of this scoping review is to identify and map the current available empirical evidence on the role of PPI during different stages of healthcare innovation.

Methods: The scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMAScR and included any study published in a peer-reviewed journal between 2004 and 2021 that reported on PPI in healthcare innovation within any healthcare setting or context in any country. The following databases were searched: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, HMIC and Google Scholar. We included any study type, including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method studies. We excluded theoretical frameworks, conceptual, scientific or grey literature as well as discussion and opinion papers.

Results: Of the 87 included studies, 81 (93%) focused on or were conducted by authors in developed countries. A wide range of conditions were considered, with more studies focusing on mental health (n = 18, 21%) and cancer care (n = 8, 9%). The vast majority of the studies focused on process and service innovations (n = 62, 71%). Seven studies focused on technological and clinical innovations (8%), while 12 looked at both technological and service innovations (14%). Only five studies examined systems innovation (5%) and one study looked across all types of innovations (1%). PPI is more common in the earlier stages of innovation, particularly problem identification and invention, in comparison to adoption and diffusion.

Conclusion: Healthcare innovation tends to be a lengthy process. Yet, our study highlights that PPI is more common across earlier stages of innovation and focuses mostly on service innovation. Stronger PPI in later stages could support the adoption and diffusion of innovation.

Patient or public contribution: One of the coauthors of the paper (S. S.) is a service user with extensive experience in PPI research. S. S. supported the analysis and writing up of the paper.

Keywords: healthcare innovation; patient and public involvement; scoping review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flow chart. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses
Figure 2
Figure 2
Patient and public involvement across the innovation journey
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Richards T. Patient and public involvement in research goes global. The BMJ. 2017. Accessed June 30, 2021. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2017/11/30/tessa-richards-patient-and-public-i...
    1. Baines RL, Regan de Bere S. Optimizing patient and public involvement (PPI): identifying its “essential” and “desirable” principles using a systematic review and modified Delphi methodology. Health Expect. 2018;21(1):327‐335. 10.1111/hex.12618 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    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(5):637‐650. 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Crawford MJ, Rutter D, Manley C, et al. Systematic review of involving patients in the planning and development of health care. BMJ. 2002;325(7375):1263. 10.1136/bmj.325.7375.1263 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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 J Int Soc Qual Health Care. 2012;24(1):28‐38. 10.1093/intqhc/mzr066 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types