The GRIPP checklist: Strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research
01 Oct 2011-International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care (Cambridge University Press)-Vol. 27, Iss: 4, pp 391-399
TL;DR: The GRIPP checklist represents the first international attempt to enhance the quality of PPI reporting and will strengthen the PPI evidence-base and enable more effective evaluation of what PPI works, for whom, in what circumstances and why.
Abstract: Objectives: The aim of this study was to develop the GRIPP (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and Public) checklist to enhance the quality of PPI reporting. Methods: Thematic analysis was used to synthesize key issues relating to patient and public involvement (PPI) identified in the PIRICOM and PAPIRIS systematic reviews. These issues informed the development of the GRIPP checklist. Results: The key issues identified included limited conceptualization of PPI, poor quality of methods reporting, unclear content validity of studies, poor reporting of context and process, enormous variability in the way impact is reported, little formal evaluation of the quality of involvement, limited focus on negative impacts, and little robust measurement of impact. The GRIPP checklist addresses these key issues. Conclusion: The reporting of patient and public involvement in health research needs significant enhancement. The GRIPP checklist represents the first international attempt to enhance the quality of PPI reporting. Better reporting will strengthen the PPI evidence-base and so enable more effective evaluation of what PPI works, for whom, in what circumstances and why.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: There is an increasing international interest in patient and public involvement in research, yet relatively little robust evidence exists about its impact on health and social care research.
Abstract: Background
There is an increasing international interest in patient and public involvement (PPI) in research, yet relatively little robust evidence exists about its impact on health and social care research.
Objective
To identify the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research.
Design
A systematic search of electronic databases and health libraries was undertaken from 1995 to 2009. Data were extracted and quality assessed utilizing the guidelines of the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination 2009 and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). Grey literature was assessed using the Dixon-Woods et al. (2005) checklist.
Inclusion criteria
All study types that reported the impact PPI had on the health and/or social care research study.
Main results
A total of 66 studies reporting the impact of PPI on health and social care research were included. The positive impacts identified enhanced the quality and appropriateness of research. Impacts were reported for all stages of research, including the development of user-focused research objectives, development of user-relevant research questions, development of user-friendly information, questionnaires and interview schedules, more appropriate recruitment strategies for studies, consumer-focused interpretation of data and enhanced implementation and dissemination of study results. Some challenging impacts were also identified.
Conclusion
This study provides the first international evidence of PPI impact that has emerged at all key stages of the research process. However, much of the evidence base concerning impact remains weak and needs significant enhancement in the next decade.
964 citations
TL;DR: The EQUATOR Network as mentioned in this paper is an international initiative that aims to enhance the reliability and value of the published health research literature by providing resources, education and training to facilitate good research reporting and assists in the development, dissemination and implementation of robust reporting guidelines.
Abstract: Growing evidence demonstrates widespread deficiencies in the reporting of health research studies. The EQUATOR Network is an international initiative that aims to enhance the reliability and value of the published health research literature. EQUATOR provides resources, education and training to facilitate good research reporting and assists in the development, dissemination and implementation of robust reporting guidelines. This paper presents a collection of tools and guidelines available on the EQUATOR website (http://www.equator-network.org) that have been developed to increase the accuracy and transparency of health research reporting.
962 citations
TL;DR: Both versions of GRIPP2 represent the first international evidence based, consensus informed guidance for reporting patient and public involvement in research and aim to improve the quality, transparency, and consistency of the international PPI evidence base.
Abstract: While the patient and public involvement (PPI) evidence base has expanded over the past decade, the quality of reporting within papers is often inconsistent, limiting our understanding of how it works, in what context, for whom, and why. To develop international consensus on the key items to report to enhance the quality, transparency, and consistency of the PPI evidence base. To collaboratively involve patients as research partners at all stages in the development of GRIPP2. The EQUATOR method for developing reporting guidelines was used. The original GRIPP (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public) checklist was revised, based on updated systematic review evidence. A three round Delphi survey was used to develop consensus on items to be included in the guideline. A subsequent face-to-face meeting produced agreement on items not reaching consensus during the Delphi process. One hundred forty-three participants agreed to participate in round one, with an 86% (123/143) response for round two and a 78% (112/143) response for round three. The Delphi survey identified the need for long form (LF) and short form (SF) versions. GRIPP2-LF includes 34 items on aims, definitions, concepts and theory, methods, stages and nature of involvement, context, capture or measurement of impact, outcomes, economic assessment, and reflections and is suitable for studies where the main focus is PPI. GRIPP2-SF includes five items on aims, methods, results, outcomes, and critical perspective and is suitable for studies where PPI is a secondary focus. GRIPP2-LF and GRIPP2-SF represent the first international evidence based, consensus informed guidance for reporting patient and public involvement in research. Both versions of GRIPP2 aim to improve the quality, transparency, and consistency of the international PPI evidence base, to ensure PPI practice is based on the best evidence. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on The BMJ and Research Involvement and Engagement journal websites.
777 citations
Cites background from "The GRIPP checklist: Strengthening ..."
...PPI in research can improve the relevance and overall quality of research, by ensuring that it focuses on the issues of importance to patients [1]....
[...]
...This prompted the development of the original Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP), which tackled inconsistent reporting by helping researchers, patients, carers, and the public to improve the quality, consistency, and transparency of PPI reporting, to strengthen the quality of the international PPI evidence base [1]....
[...]
TL;DR: There is growing attention towards increasing patient and service user engagement in biomedical and health services research, but existing variations in language and design inhibit reporting and indexing, which are crucial to comparative effectiveness in determining best practices.
Abstract: Background
There is growing attention towards increasing patient and service user engagement (PSUE) in biomedical and health services research. Existing variations in language and design inhibit reporting and indexing, which are crucial to comparative effectiveness in determining best practices.
Objective
This paper utilizes a systematic review and environmental scan to derive an evidence-based framework for PSUE.
Design
A metanarrative systematic review and environmental scan/manual search using scientific databases and other search engines, along with feedback from a patient advisory group (PAG).
Eligible sources
English-language studies, commentaries, grey literature and other sources (including systematic and non-systematic reviews) pertaining to patient and public involvement in biomedical and health services research.
Data extracted
Study description (e.g. participant demographics, research setting) and design, if applicable; frameworks, conceptualizations or planning schemes for PSUE-related endeavours; and methods for PSUE initiation and gathering patients'/service users' input or contributions.
Results
Overall, 202 sources were included and met eligibility criteria; 41 of these presented some framework or conceptualization of PSUE. Sources were synthesized into a two-part framework for PSUE: (i) integral PSUE components include patient and service user initiation, reciprocal relationships, colearning and re-assessment and feedback, (ii) sources describe PSUE at several research stages, within three larger phases: preparatory, execution and translational.
Discussion and Conclusions
Efforts at developing a solid evidence base on PSUE are limited by the non-standard and non-empirical nature of much of the literature. Our proposed two-part framework provides a standard structure and language for reporting and indexing to support comparative effectiveness and optimize PSUE.
452 citations
TL;DR: This is the first international systematic review to focus on the impact of PPI on the people involved in the process, highlighting the importance of optimising the context and processes of involvement, so creating the potential for PPI to impact positively on the research itself.
Abstract: Objective
Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research has expanded nationally and internationally over the last decade, and recently there has been significant attention given to understanding its impact on research. Less attention has been given to the impact of PPI on the people involved, yet it has been shown that the success of PPI in research can be reliant on the processes of engagement between these individuals and communities. This paper therefore critically explores the impact of PPI on service users, researchers and communities involved in health and social care research.
430 citations
Cites background from "The GRIPP checklist: Strengthening ..."
...However, although this paper has reported some important impacts on the people involved in research, the primary studies often report impact poorly, particularly in relation to the depth and content validity of the reporting, that is, the extent to which all the impacts identified in a study are actually reported in the final papers [85]....
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: A 36-item short-form survey designed for use in clinical practice and research, health policy evaluations, and general population surveys to survey health status in the Medical Outcomes Study is constructed.
Abstract: A 36-item short-form (SF-36) was constructed to survey health status in the Medical Outcomes Study. The SF-36 was designed for use in clinical practice and research, health policy evaluations, and general population surveys. The SF-36 includes one multi-item scale that assesses eight health concepts: 1) limitations in physical activities because of health problems; 2) limitations in social activities because of physical or emotional problems; 3) limitations in usual role activities because of physical health problems; 4) bodily pain; 5) general mental health (psychological distress and well-being); 6) limitations in usual role activities because of emotional problems; 7) vitality (energy and fatigue); and 8) general health perceptions. The survey was constructed for self-administration by persons 14 years of age and older, and for administration by a trained interviewer in person or by telephone. The history of the development of the SF-36, the origin of specific items, and the logic underlying their selection are summarized. The content and features of the SF-36 are compared with the 20-item Medical Outcomes Study short-form.
33,857 citations
Book•
07 Dec 1989TL;DR: In this article, the authors propose three basic concepts: devising the items, selecting the items and selecting the responses, from items to scales, reliability and validity of the responses.
Abstract: 1. Introduction 2. Basic concepts 3. Devising the items 4. Scaling responses 5. Selecting the items 6. Biases in responding 7. From items to scales 8. Reliability 9. Generalizability theory 10. Validity 11. Measuring change 12. Item response theory 13. Methods of administration 14. Ethical considerations 15. Reporting test results Appendices
9,316 citations
TL;DR: This update of the CONSORT statement improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias.
Abstract: Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.
5,957 citations
TL;DR: The revised CONSORT statement is intended to improve the reporting of an RCT, enabling readers to understand a trial's conduct and to assess the validity of its results.
4,977 citations
TL;DR: For RCTs to ultimately benefit patients, the published report should be of the highest possible standard and should provide the reader with the ability to make informed judgments regarding the internal and external validity of the trial.
Abstract: THE RANDOMIZED controlled trial (RCT), more than any other methodology, can have a powerful and immediate impact on patient care. Ideally, the report of such an evaluation needs to convey to the reader relevant information concerning the design, conduct, analysis, and generalizability of the trial. This information should provide the reader with the ability to make informed judgments regarding the internal and external validity of the trial. Accurate and complete reporting also benefits editors and reviewers in their deliberations regarding submitted manuscripts. For RCTs to ultimately benefit patients, the published report should be of the highest possible standard. For editorial comment see p 649. Evidence produced repeatedly over the last 30 years indicates a wide chasm between what a trial should report and what is actually published in the literature. In a review of 71 RCTs with negative results published between 1960 and 1975, the authors reported that the vast
3,197 citations