The GRIPP checklist: Strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research
Open accessAbstract
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.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The original GRIPP checklist tackled inconsistent reporting by helping researchers, patients, carers, and the public to improve the quality, consistency, and transparency of PPI reporting.
“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].”
From GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research (2017) · cites this paper as [1]
PPI in research can improve the relevance and overall quality of research by ensuring it focuses on issues of importance to patients.
“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].”
From GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research (2017) · cites this paper as [1]
The quality of reporting of patient and public involvement in research papers is often inconsistent and partial, with little information about context, process, and impact.
“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.”
From GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research (2017) · cites this paper as [1]
The relatively small amount of empirical evidence on the impact of PPI in research has been criticised as poorly reported and methodologically weak, often failing to fully explore the contextual factors surrounding PPI as a complex intervention.
“The relatively small amount of empirical evidence on the impact of PPI in research 29 has been criticised as poorly reported 21 and methodologically weak, often failing to fully explore the contextual factors surrounding PPI as a complex intervention.30”
From ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study (2015) · cites this paper as [21]
There is little systematic appraisal and reporting of PPI impact and outcomes, further constrained by the conventions of academic publishing.
“Second, there is little systematic appraisal and reporting of PPI impact and outcomes, 101 further constrained by the conventions of academic publishing.21”
From ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study (2015) · cites this paper as [21]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
(1992) · PubMed · Cited by 33,716 · see citing works
The MOS 36-ltem Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual Framework and Item Selection
Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002 · Cited by 30,033 · see citing works
Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use
Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (1989) · Cited by 9,595 · see citing works
Moher, D., Hopewell, S., Schulz, K. F., Montori, V., Gotzsche, P. C., Devereaux, P. J., Elbourne, D., Egger, M., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.c869 · Cited by 8,883 · see citing works
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04337-3 · Cited by 5,373 · see citing works
Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care
Tacconelli, E. (2010) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(10)70065-7 · Cited by 3,237 · see citing works
Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials: The CONSORT Statement
Begg, C. (1996) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540080059030 · Cited by 3,127 · see citing works
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-1-2 · Cited by 2,755 · see citing works
Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use
Vogelzang, J. L. (2015) · Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2015.03.007 · Cited by 2,393 · see citing works
The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: a systematic review
Mockford, C., Staniszewska, S., Griffiths, F., & Herron-Marx, S. (2012) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzr066 · Cited by 570 · see citing works
Self-citationConsumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda
Boote, J. D., Telford, R., & Cooper, C. L. (2002) · Health Policy · doi:10.1016/s0168-8510(01)00214-7 · Cited by 506 · see citing works
Facey, K. M., Boivin, A., Gracia, J., Hansen, H. P., Scalzo, A. L., Mossman, J., & Single, A. N. V. (2010) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462310000395 · Cited by 266 · see citing works
Staniszewska, S., Adebajo, A., Barber, R., Beresford, P., Brady, L.-M., Brett, J., Elliott, J., Evans, D., Haywood, K. L., Jones, D., et al. (2011) · International Journal of Consumer Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01020.x · Cited by 182 · see citing works
Self-citationGagnon, M., Desmartis, M., Lepage‐Savary, D., Gagnon, J., St‐Pierre, M., Rhainds, M., Lemieux, R., Gauvin, F., Pollender, H., & Légaré, F. (2011) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462310001315 · Cited by 173 · see citing works
Brett, J., Staniszewska, S. H., Mockford, C., Seers, K., Herron‐Marx, S., & Bayliss, H. (2010) · University of Warwick · doi:10.82444/warw.33667912 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
Self-citationPatient Participation in Health Research: Research With and for People With Spinal Cord Injuries
Abma, T. (2005) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732305282382 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Critical appraisal guidelines for assessing the quality and impact of user involvement in research
Wright, D. N. M., Foster, C. L., Amir, Z., et al. (2010) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00607.x · Cited by 97 · see citing works
The National Health and Medical Research Council
Stanford, R. W. (1971) · Australasian Radiology · doi:10.1111/j.1440-1673.1971.tb01238.x · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Consumer‐driven health care: Building partnerships in research
Shea, B., Santesso, N. A., Qualman, A., Heiberg, T., Leong, A. L., Judd, M., Robinson, V. A., Wells, G. A., Tugwell, P., & the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Consumer Group (2005) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2005.00347.x · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Coupland, H., & Maher, L. (2005) · International Journal of Drug Policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2004.12.002 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Moving cautiously: Public involvement and the health technology assessment community
Gauvin, F., Abelson, J., Giacomini, M. K., et al. (2011) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462310001200 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Mind sharpeners for scientists: The EQUATOR Network
Mākelä, M., Kaila, M., & Stein, K. (2011) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462311000158 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Makela M, Stein K. Mind sharpeners for scientists. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:99-100.
- Mockford C, Staniszewska S, Griffiths F, et al. The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS healthcare. Inter- national Journal of Quality in Healthcare. In press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Staniszewska, S., Brett, J., Simera, I., Seers, K., Mockford, C., Goodlad, S., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., Barber, R., Denegri, S., et al. (2017) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.j3453 · Cited by 1,983 · see citing works
Self-citationStaniszewska, S., Brett, J., Simera, I., Seers, K., Mockford, C., Goodlad, S., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., Barber, R., Denegri, S., et al. (2017) · Research Involvement and Engagement · doi:10.1186/s40900-017-0062-2 · Cited by 1,643 · see citing works
“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].”
BackgroundSelf-citationBrett, J., Staniszewska, S., Mockford, C., Herron‐Marx, S., Hughes, J., Tysall, C., & Suleman, R. (2014) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x · Cited by 1,598 · see citing works
Self-citationResearch co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews
Slattery, P., Saeri, A. K., & Bragge, P. (2020) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-020-0528-9 · Cited by 1,313 · see citing works
Greenhalgh, T., Hinton, L., Finlay, T., Macfarlane, A., Fahy, N., Clyde, B., & Chant, A. (2019) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12888 · Cited by 1,059 · see citing works
A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research
Simera, I., Moher, D., Hoey, J., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · European Journal of Clinical Investigation · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2362.2009.02234.x · Cited by 1,047 · see citing works
Brett, J., Staniszewska, S., Mockford, C., Herron-Marx, S., Hughes, J., Tysall, C., & Suleman, R. (2014) · The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research · doi:10.1007/s40271-014-0065-0 · Cited by 839 · see citing works
Self-citationThe impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: a systematic review
Mockford, C., Staniszewska, S., Griffiths, F., & Herron-Marx, S. (2012) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzr066 · Cited by 570 · see citing works
Self-citationEvaluating patient and stakeholder engagement in research: moving from theory to practice
Esmail, L., Moore, E., & Rein, A. (2015) · Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research · doi:10.2217/cer.14.79 · Cited by 502 · see citing works
Patient involvement in the development of patient‐reported outcome measures: a scoping review
Wiering, B., de Boer, D., & Delnoij, D. (2017) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12442 · Cited by 365 · see citing works
ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study
Wilson, P., Mathie, E., Keenan, J., McNeilly, E., Goodman, C., Howe, A., Poland, F., Staniszewska, S., Kendall, S., Munday, D., et al. (2015) · Health Services and Delivery Research · doi:10.3310/hsdr03380 · Cited by 297 · see citing works
“This reflected the overall low quality of reporting PPI in studies.(21) Paradoxically, while DOI: 10.”
InfluentialSelf-citationBoivin, A., L'Espérance, A., Gauvin, F., Dumez, V., Macaulay, A. C., Lehoux, P., & Abelson, J. (2018) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12804 · Cited by 285 · see citing works
Patient and public involvement in the design of clinical trials: An overview of systematic reviews
Price, A., Albarqouni, L., Kirkpatrick, J., Clarke, M., Liew, S. M., Roberts, N., & Burls, A. (2018) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/jep.12805 · Cited by 234 · see citing works
Crocker, J. C., Boylan, A., Bostock, J., & Locock, L. (2017) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12479 · Cited by 194 · see citing works
Staniszewska, S., Adebajo, A., Barber, R., Beresford, P., Brady, L.-M., Brett, J., Elliott, J., Evans, D., Haywood, K. L., Jones, D., et al. (2011) · International Journal of Consumer Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01020.x · Cited by 182 · see citing works
Self-citationStakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review
Pollock, A., Campbell, P., Struthers, C., Synnot, A., Nunn, J., Hill, S., Goodare, H., Morris, J., Watts, C., & Morley, R. (2018) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-018-0852-0 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
Snape, D., Kirkham, J., Preston, J., Popay, J., Britten, N., Collins, M., Froggatt, K., Gibson, A., Lobban, F., Wyatt, K., et al. (2014) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004217 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Consumer involvement in health research: a <scp>UK</scp> scoping and survey
Mathie, E., Wilson, P., Poland, F., McNeilly, E., Howe, A., Staniszewska, S., Cowe, M., Munday, D., & Goodman, C. (2014) · International Journal of Consumer Studies · doi:10.1111/ijcs.12072 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Self-citationon behalf of the ‘BIBS’ study team, Morgan, H., Thomson, G., Crossland, N., Dykes, F., & Hoddinott, P. (2016) · Research Involvement and Engagement · doi:10.1186/s40900-016-0023-1 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Involving service users in trials: developing a standard operating procedure
Evans, B., Bedson, E., Bell, P., Hutchings, H., Lowes, L., Rea, D., Seagrove, A., Siebert, S., Smith, G., Snooks, H., et al. (2013) · Trials · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-14-219 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Harris, J., Graue, M., Dunning, T., Haltbakk, J., Austrheim, G., Skille, N., Rokne, B., & Kirkevold, M. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0127-y · Cited by 11 · see citing works
- Authors
- Staniszewska, S., Brett, J., Mockford, C., & Barber, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Warwick (GB)
- University of Sheffield (GB)
- Venue
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2011-10
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 391-399
- ISSN
- 0266-4623 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-6348
- OpenAlex
- W2112728637
- Cited by
- 369
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2026: 25 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 21.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Keywords
- patient and public involvement, reporting quality, reporting checklist, health research, research impact, content validity
- MeSH terms
- Community Participation, Humans, Patient Participation, Research Design, Technology Assessment, Biomedical, Reproducibility of Results, Checklist
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
