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
. 2023 Aug;26(4):1436-1452.
doi: 10.1111/hex.13787. Epub 2023 Jun 1.

The benefits, challenges, and best practice for patient and public involvement in evidence synthesis: A systematic review and thematic synthesis

Eldad Agyei-Manu  1 , Nadege Atkins  1 , Bohee Lee  1   2 , Jasmin Rostron  1   3 , Marshall Dozier  1 , Maureen Smith  4 , Ruth McQuillan  1
Affiliations

The benefits, challenges, and best practice for patient and public involvement in evidence synthesis: A systematic review and thematic synthesis

Eldad Agyei-Manu et al. Health Expect. 2023 Aug.

Abstract

Introduction: Despite the growing evidence on patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research, little emphasis has been placed on understanding its quality and appropriateness to evidence synthesis (ES) and systematic reviews (SR). This study aimed to synthesise qualitative evidence on the benefits, challenges, and best practices for PPI in ES/SR projects from the perspectives of patients/public and researchers.

Methods: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Cochrane Library and CINAHL Plus. We also searched relevant grey literature and conducted hand-searching to identify qualitative studies which report the benefits and challenges of PPI in individual ES/SR projects. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers for inclusion and appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute's Qualitative Tool. Included studies were synthesised narratively using thematic synthesis.

Results: The literature search retrieved 9923 articles, of which eight studies were included in this review. Five themes on benefits emerged: two from patients'/public's perspective-gaining knowledge, and empowerment; and three from researchers' perspective-enhancing relevance, improving quality, and enhancing dissemination of findings. Six themes on challenges were identified: three from patients'/public's perspective-poor communication, time and low self-esteem; and three from researchers' perspective-balancing inputs and managing relations, time, and resources and training. Concerning recommendations for best practice, four themes emerged: provision of sufficient time and resources, developing a clear recruitment plan, provision of sufficient training and support, and the need to foster positive working relationships.

Conclusion: Highlighting the benefits and challenges of PPI in ES/SR projects from different stakeholder perspectives is essential to understand the process and contextual factors and facilitate meaningful PPI in ES/SR projects. Future research should focus on the utilisation of existing frameworks (e.g., Authors and Consumers Together Impacting on eVidencE [ACTIVE] framework) by researchers to help describe and/or report the best approaches and methods for involving patients/public in ES/SRs projects.

Patient and public contribution: This review received great contributions from a recognised PPI partner, the Chair of the Cochrane Consumer Network Executive, to inform the final stage of the review (i.e., interpretation, publication and dissemination of findings). The PPI partner has been included as an author of this review.

Keywords: benefits; best practice; challenges; evidence synthesis; patient and public involvement; systematic review; thematic synthesis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flowchart showing the selection of relevant literature.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Quality assessment of included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute's Qualitative tool.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Nass SJ, Levit LA, Gostin LO, Institute of Medicine (U.S.). Committee on Health Research and the Privacy of Health Information, the HIPAA Privacy Rule . The value, importance, and oversight of health research. In: Levit LA, Gostin LO, Nass SJ, eds. Beyond the HIPAA Privacy Rule: Enhancing Privacy, Improving Health through Research. National Academies Press; 2009. - PubMed
    1. Harrison JD, Auerbach AD, Anderson W, et al. Patient stakeholder engagement in research: a narrative review to describe foundational principles and best practice activities. Health Expect. 2019;22(3):307‐316. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Boote J, Wong R, Booth A. ‘Talking the talk or walking the walk?’ A bibliometric review of the literature on public involvement in health research published between 1995 and 2009. Health Expect. 2015;18(1):44‐57. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Beresford P. Developing the theoretical basis for service user/survivor‐led research and equal involvement in research. Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc. 2005;14(1):4‐9. - PubMed
    1. 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.

Publication types

Grants and funding