Scholarlink

Background <p>Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement is important to ensure research addresses the issues that matter most to patients and the public. However, reporting and publishing of these activities is variable and inconsistent. This rapid review aimed to assess how effectively, consistently, and transparently Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement is reported on in papers published by authors affiliated with a heath research institute at a UK Russell Group university.</p> Methods <p>A rapid review of all papers published by institute-affiliated authors (1st August 2021 to 31st December 2024) identified using PubMed. We also consulted with a group of patient co-authors to understand their experiences of being a Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement co-author in collaboration with researchers from the same institute.</p> Results <p>We retained and reviewed 523 papers for inclusion of Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement. There was significant variation in the reporting across the papers included. Overall, 21% of papers had reference to Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement activity in the main body of the paper, and 17% of papers included Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement in the acknowledgements. In terms of co-authorship, 5% of papers included an author with an affiliation to a charity/non-governmental organisation that represented Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement -related interested, e.g. Alzheimer’s Society, Caribbean and African Health Network and 1% of papers included a patient/lived-experience author. A total of 97% of papers were published open access but only 10% of articles included in this review had a plain English or lay summary. Only one paper included a published GRIPP2 form. The Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement group reviewed and contextualised our findings, supporting analysis and development of seven key recommendations to improve comprehensive, consistent, and transparent reporting of Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement in health research at an institute level.</p> Conclusions <p>This work demonstrates the challenges that Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement faces and the importance of institutions reflecting on the practices of their academics, and the structures they put in place to encourage good and equitable practices of working with patents and the public.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

A rapid evaluation of the reporting and publishing practices of patient and public involvement and engagement in health research within a UK university institute

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月14日

查看全文
  • Hannah May Scott,
  • Lily Price,
  • Margaret Ogden,
  • Trishna Bharadia,
  • Patrick Burke,
  • Rachel Horne,
  • Ava Harding-Bell,
  • Alexander Tonkin,
  • Alison Thomson

摘要

Background

Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement is important to ensure research addresses the issues that matter most to patients and the public. However, reporting and publishing of these activities is variable and inconsistent. This rapid review aimed to assess how effectively, consistently, and transparently Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement is reported on in papers published by authors affiliated with a heath research institute at a UK Russell Group university.

Methods

A rapid review of all papers published by institute-affiliated authors (1st August 2021 to 31st December 2024) identified using PubMed. We also consulted with a group of patient co-authors to understand their experiences of being a Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement co-author in collaboration with researchers from the same institute.

Results

We retained and reviewed 523 papers for inclusion of Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement. There was significant variation in the reporting across the papers included. Overall, 21% of papers had reference to Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement activity in the main body of the paper, and 17% of papers included Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement in the acknowledgements. In terms of co-authorship, 5% of papers included an author with an affiliation to a charity/non-governmental organisation that represented Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement -related interested, e.g. Alzheimer’s Society, Caribbean and African Health Network and 1% of papers included a patient/lived-experience author. A total of 97% of papers were published open access but only 10% of articles included in this review had a plain English or lay summary. Only one paper included a published GRIPP2 form. The Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement group reviewed and contextualised our findings, supporting analysis and development of seven key recommendations to improve comprehensive, consistent, and transparent reporting of Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement in health research at an institute level.

Conclusions

This work demonstrates the challenges that Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement faces and the importance of institutions reflecting on the practices of their academics, and the structures they put in place to encourage good and equitable practices of working with patents and the public.