Format

Send to

Choose Destination
BMJ Open. 2018 Mar 23;8(3):e020452. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020452.

Frequency of reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research studies published in a general medical journal: a descriptive study.

Author information

1
The BMJ, London, UK.
2
Department for Continuing Education, The University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
3
Health Experiences Institute, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
4
Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

While documented plans for patient and public involvement (PPI) in research are required in many grant applications, little is known about how frequently PPI occurs in practice. Low levels of reported PPI may mask actual activity due to limited PPI reporting requirements. This research analysed the frequency and types of reported PPI in the presence and absence of a journal requirement to include this information.

DESIGN AND SETTING:

A before and after comparison of PPI reported in research papers published in The BMJ before and 1 year after the introduction of a journal policy requiring authors to report if and how they involved patients and the public within their papers.

RESULTS:

Between 1 June 2013 and 31 May 2014, The BMJ published 189 research papers and 1 (0.5%) reported PPI activity. From 1 June 2015 to 31 May 2016, following the introduction of the policy, The BMJ published 152 research papers of which 16 (11%) reported PPI activity. Patients contributed to grant applications in addition to designing studies through to coauthorship and participation in study dissemination. Patient contributors were often not fully acknowledged; 6 of 17 (35%) papers acknowledged their contributions and 2 (12%) included them as coauthors.

CONCLUSIONS:

Infrequent reporting of PPI activity does not appear to be purely due to a failure of documentation. Reporting of PPI activity increased after the introduction of The BMJ's policy, but activity both before and after was low and reporting was inconsistent in quality. Journals, funders and research institutions should collaborate to move us from the current situation where PPI is an optional extra to one where PPI is fully embedded in practice throughout the research process.

KEYWORDS:

PPI; public and patient involvement; research reporting

PMID:
29572398
PMCID:
PMC5875637
DOI:
10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020452
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: SSc, RS, SP, TR are or were employed by The BMJ which has a patient partnership initiative and requires authors to report how they involved patients in their research. AP is the Patient Editor (Research and Evaluation) at The BMJ, SSt is the Co-editor in Chief of the journal Research Involvement and Engagement and is the lead author of the GRIPP2 reporting checklist mentioned in this paper. MH and RH are patient reviewers for The BMJ. MH is also a patient reviewer for PCORI, and RH is a patient reviewer for several grant application panels and organisations. All authors support the call for greater public involvement in research.

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for HighWire Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center