The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review
Open accessAbstract
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 C entre for R eviews and D issemination 2009 and the C ritical A ppraisal S kills P rogramme ( CASP ). Grey literature was assessed using the D ixon‐ W oods 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.
Overview
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
Verification
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 cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“Data were extracted from 83 papers (the remaining seven were not written in a format suitable for data extraction but were deemed sufficiently important to include within the conceptualisation of PPI).”
From ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study (2015) · cites this paper as [29]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Drawing on the findings of the PIRICOM study, 29 a validated online survey tool (Bristol Online Surveys, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK) was designed to collect data to assess how PPI is operationalised and its perceived impact on each study.”
From ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study (2015) · cites this paper as [29]
In the citing paper
“While the original GRIPP checklist represented an important starting point in creating high quality PPI reporting, its development drew on systematic review evidence, without broader input from the international PPI research community [2–4].”
From GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research (2017) · cites this paper as [2]
In the citing paper
“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 [2]
In the citing paper
“Inadequate reporting can create problems for systematic reviews that attempt to synthesise PPI evidence [2–4].”
From GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research (2017) · cites this paper as [2]
In the citing paper
“While GRIPP2-LF and GRIPP2-SF aim to guide consistent reporting, it is not possible to be prescriptive about the exact content of each item, as the current evidence base is not advanced enough to make this possible [2–4, 21].”
From GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research (2017) · cites this paper as [2]
In the citing paper
“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 [29]
In the citing paper
“Ninety papers published between 1995 and 2009 were included.”
From ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study (2015) · cites this paper as [29]
In the citing paper
“Of the 83 papers, 2 were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 52 qualitative studies, 15 case study methodology, 4 cross-sectional studies and 10 structured reviews.”
From ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study (2015) · cites this paper as [29]
In the citing paper
“They did not find any evidence around systematic measurement of PPI outcomes, and furthermore found a lack of clarity on the differences between PPI impact and outcomes.”
From ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study (2015) · cites this paper as [29]
In the citing paper
“Providing a more robust evidence base for PPI policy requires moving beyond observational evaluations of PPI.29,30”
From ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study (2015) · cites this paper as [29]
In the citing paper
“Hence, while there appears to be a reasonably robust level of evidence around the 'architecture of PPI', reporting of outcomes continues to be poor.”
From ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study (2015) · cites this paper as [29]
In the citing paper
“What evidence there is tends to be descriptive, largely qualitative, often retrospective case studies, 19,29,106 with only a few exceptional prospective longitudinal case studies, 15 comparative multiproject evaluations 107 or studies employing quantitative designs.108”
From ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study (2015) · cites this paper as [29]
In the citing paper
“Brett et al. 29 argue that most studies have attempted to conceptualise PPI mainly around context and process and have not sufficiently theoretically grasped the complexities of PPI.”
From ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study (2015) · cites this paper as [29]
In the citing paper
“As in Staley's review, 19 the papers provided more evidence around the processes of PPI rather than impact and outcomes, and found scant evidence of PPI impact on funding decisions.”
From ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study (2015) · cites this paper as [29]
In the citing paper
“Although the PIRICOM study found little evidence of PPI being theoretically conceptualised, there has been some work to develop a consensus on the principles and indicators of successful PPI, 133 and this was used to underpin the survey design.”
From ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study (2015) · cites this paper as [29]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
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 3,270
Community-based participatory research: assessing the evidence.
Viswanathan, M., Ammerman, A., Eng, E. M., Garlehner, G., Lohr, K. N., Griffith, D. M., Rhodes, S. D., Samuel‐Hodge, C. D., Maty, S. C., Lux, L. J., et al. (2004) · PubMed Central · Cited by 959
Nilsen, E. S., Myrhaug, H. T., Johansen, M., Oliver, S. R., & Oxman, A. D. (2006) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004563.pub2 · Cited by 565
Lay perspectives: advantages for health research
Entwistle, V. A., Renfrew, M. J., Yearley, S., Forrester, J. M., & Lamont, T. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7129.463 · Cited by 376
Staniszewska, S., Brett, J., Mockford, C., & Barber, R. (2011) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462311000481 · Cited by 369
Self-citationCashman, S. B., Adeky, S., Allen, A. J., Corburn, J., Israel, B. A., Montaño, J., Rafelito, A., Rhodes, S. D., Swanston, S., Wallerstein, N. B., et al. (2008) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.2007.113571 · Cited by 347
Benefits of and barriers to involving users in medical device technology development and evaluation
Shah, S. G. S., & Robinson, I. (2007) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462307051677 · Cited by 299
From passive subjects to equal partners
Trivedi, P., & Wykes, T. (2002) · The British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.181.6.468 · Cited by 281
Patients and professionals as research partners: Challenges, practicalities, and benefits
HEWLETT, S. E., de Wit, M. P. T., Richards, P., Quest, E. M., Hughes, R., Heiberg, T., & Kirwan, J. (2006) · Arthritis Care & Research · doi:10.1002/art.22091 · Cited by 272
Abelson, J., Giacomini, M. K., Lehoux, P., & Gauvin, F. (2006) · Health Policy · doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2006.07.009 · Cited by 251
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- Dixon P, 1999, A Database of Examples of Consumer Involvement in Research
- Blaxter M, 1995, Consumer Issues Within the NHS: An R & D Contribution to Consumer Involvement in the NHS
- Brett J, 2010, Systematic Review of the Conceptualization, Measurement, Impact and Outcomes of Patient and Public Involvement in Health and Social Care Research
- Dixon‐Woods M, 2005, Vulnerable Groups and Access, to Health Care: A Critical Interpretative Review
- Popay J, 2005, Developing guidance on conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59, A7
- UKCRC & TwoCan Associates, 2009, An Evaluation of the Process and Impact of Patient and Public Involvement in the Advisory Groups of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration
- Faulkner A, 2006, Beyond our Expectations: A Report of the Experiences of Involving Service Users in Forensic Mental Health Research
- Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health, 2008, A Review of Service User Involvement in Prison Mental Health Research
- Kelson M, 1999, National Sentinel Audits Involving Older People: A Guide to Involving Older People in Local Audit Activity
- 10.1080/13561820400011792 · DOI
- Rose D, 2004, Telling different stories: user involvement in mental health research, Research and Policy Planning, 22, 23
- Faulkner A, 2004, Capturing the Experiences of those Involved in the TRUE Project. A Story of Colliding Worlds
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The COMET Handbook: version 1.0
Williamson, P. R., Altman, D. G., Bagley, H., Barnes, K. L., Blazeby, J. M., Brookes, S. T., Clarke, M., Gargon, E., Gorst, S., Harman, N., et al. (2017) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1978-4 · Cited by 2,011
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
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
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
From tokenism to empowerment: progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement
Ocloo, J. E., & Matthews, R. (2016) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004839 · Cited by 1,015
Husereau, D., Drummond, M., Augustovski, F., de Bekker-Grob, E., Briggs, A. H., Carswell, C., Caulley, L., Chaiyakunapruk, N., Greenberg, D., Loder, E., et al. (2022) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2021.10.008 · Cited by 847
Self-citationBrett, 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
Self-citationMaking the future together: Shaping autism research through meaningful participation
Fletcher-Watson, S., Adams, J., Brook, K., Charman, T., Crane, L., Cusack, J., Leekam, S., Milton, D., Parr, J. R., & Pellicano, E. (2019) · Autism · doi:10.1177/1362361318786721 · Cited by 776
Crocker, J. C., Ricci‐Cabello, I., Parker, A., Hirst, J. A., Chant, A., Petit-Zeman, S., Evans, D., & Rees, S. (2018) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.k4738 · Cited by 650
Evaluating 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
Patient Engagement In Research: Early Findings From The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
Forsythe, L. P., Carman, K. L., Szydlowski, V., Fayish, L., Davidson, L., Hickam, D. H., Hall, C., Bhat, G., Neu, D., Stewart, L., et al. (2019) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05067 · Cited by 442
Episodic memory in normal aging and Alzheimer disease: Insights from imaging and behavioral studies
Tromp, D., Dufour, A., Lithfous, S., Pebayle, T., & Després, O. (2015) · Ageing Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.arr.2015.08.006 · Cited by 390
‘Is it worth doing?’ Measuring the impact of patient and public involvement in research
Staley, K. (2015) · Research Involvement and Engagement · doi:10.1186/s40900-015-0008-5 · Cited by 363
The PCORI Engagement Rubric: Promising Practices for Partnering in Research
Sheridan, S. E., Schrandt, S., Forsythe, L. P., Hilliard, T. S., & Paez, K. (2017) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.2042 · Cited by 360
Panel, S. G. P. C., Hoekstra, F., Mrklas, K., Khan, M., McKay, R. C., Vis‐Dunbar, M., Sibley, K. M., Nguyen, T., Graham, I. D., & Gainforth, H. L. (2020) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-020-0544-9 · Cited by 365
Patient and Stakeholder Engagement in the PCORI Pilot Projects: Description and Lessons Learned
Forsythe, L. P., Ellis, L. E., Edmundson, L., Sabharwal, R., Rein, A. L., Konopka, K., & Frank, L. B. (2015) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-015-3450-z · Cited by 325
Bird, M., Ouellette, C., Whitmore, C., Li, L. H., Nair, K., McGillion, M. H., Yost, J., Banfield, L. E., Campbell, E., & Carroll, S. L. (2020) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.13040 · Cited by 312
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
“More recently there has been a growing emphasis on making attempts to assess the impact of PPI.(19,29,31,32,159) While fairly limited in the amount of evidence this would elicit about the benefits of PPI in research, the survey included an open question where respondents could write about at which stage they felt PPI…”
InfluentialSelf-citationHarrison, J. D., Auerbach, A. D., Anderson, W., Fagan, M., Carnie, M., Hanson, C., Banta, J., Symczak, G., Robinson, E., Schnipper, J., et al. (2019) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12873 · Cited by 286
Boivin, 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
Fineberg, N. A., Menchón, J. M., Hall, N., Dell’Osso, B. M., Brand, M., Potenza, M. N., Chamberlain, S. R., Cirnigliaro, G., Löchner, C., Billieux, J., et al. (2022) · Comprehensive Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2022.152346 · Cited by 276
Hartley, S., Raphael, J., Lovell, K., & Berry, K. (2020) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.103490 · Cited by 245
Green, T., Bonner, A., Teleni, L., Bradford, N., Purtell, L., Douglas, C., Yates, P. M., MacAndrew, M., Dao, H. Y., & Chan, R. J. (2019) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009570 · Cited by 236
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
Abelson, J., Li, K. K., Wilson, G., Shields, K., Schneider, C., & Boesveld, S. E. (2015) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12378 · Cited by 233
Ortiz, K. S., Nash, J. L., Shea, L., OETZEL, J. G., Garoutte, J., Sanchez‐Youngman, S., & Wallerstein, N. B. (2020) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094220 · Cited by 224
Halvorsrud, K., Kucharska, J., Adlington, K., Rüdell, K., Hajdukova, E. B., Nazroo, J. Y., Haarmans, M., Rhodes, J., & Bhui, K. S. (2019) · Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdz126 · Cited by 222
Forsythe, L. P., Heckert, A., Margolis, M. K., Schrandt, S., & Frank, L. B. (2017) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-017-1581-x · Cited by 218
Shen, S., Doyle‐Thomas, K. A. R., Beesley, L., Karmali, A., Williams, L., Tanel, N. L., & McPherson, A. C. (2016) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12490 · Cited by 214
Patient and Public Engagement in Integrated Knowledge Translation Research: Are we there yet?
Banner, D., Bains, M., Carroll, S. L., Kandola, D. K., Rolfe, D. E., Wong, C., & Graham, I. D. (2019) · Research Involvement and Engagement · doi:10.1186/s40900-019-0139-1 · Cited by 234
Development of the ACTIVE framework to describe stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews
Pollock, A., Campbell, P., Struthers, C., Synnot, A., Nunn, J., Hill, S., Goodare, H., Morris, J. H., Watts, C., & Morley, R. (2019) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1177/1355819619841647 · Cited by 213
Staniszewska, S. H., Denegri, S., Matthews, R., & Minogue, V. (2018) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017124 · Cited by 219
Self-citationEvaluating patient and public involvement in research
Boivin, A., Richards, T., Forsythe, L., Grégoire, A., L’Espérance, A., Abelson, J., & Carman, K. L. (2018) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.k5147 · Cited by 208
An empirically based conceptual framework for fostering meaningful patient engagement in research
Hamilton, C. B., Hoens, A. M., Backman, C. L., McKinnon, A., McQuitty, S., English, K., & LI, L. C. (2017) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12635 · Cited by 207
How to incorporate patient and public perspectives into the design and conduct of research
Hoddinott, P., Pollock, A., O’Cathain, A., Boyer, I., Taylor, J., MacDonald, C., Oliver, S. R., & Donovan, J. (2018) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.15162.1 · Cited by 207
User-centered design and the development of patient decision aids: protocol for a systematic review
Witteman, H. O., Dansokho, S. C., Colquhoun, H., Coulter, A., Dugas, M., Fagerlin, A., Giguere, A. M., Glouberman, S., Haslett, L., Hoffman, A., et al. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-11 · Cited by 202
Bagley, H., Short, H., Harman, N., Hickey, H., Gamble, C. L., Woolfall, K., Young, B., & Williamson, P. R. (2016) · Research Involvement and Engagement · doi:10.1186/s40900-016-0029-8 · Cited by 200
Crocker, J. C., Boylan, A., Bostock, J., & Locock, L. (2017) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12479 · Cited by 194
Patient and public involvement in research: from tokenistic box ticking to valued team members
Jackson, T., Pinnock, H., Liew, S. M., Horne, E. M. F., Ehrlich, E., Fulton, O., Worth, A., Sheikh, A., & Simoni, A. D. (2020) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-020-01544-7 · Cited by 193
The prevalence of patient engagement in published trials: a systematic review
Fergusson, D. A., Monfaredi, Z., Pussegoda, K., Garritty, C., Lyddiatt, A., Shea, B., Duffett, L. D., Ghannad, M., Montroy, J. R., Murad, M. H., et al. (2018) · Research Involvement and Engagement · doi:10.1186/s40900-018-0099-x · Cited by 182
Jennings, H., Slade, M., Bates, P., Munday, E., & Toney, R. (2018) · BMC Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/s12888-018-1794-8 · Cited by 180
Role of patient and public involvement in implementation research: a consensus study
Gray‐Burrows, K. A., Willis, T. A., Foy, R., Rathfelder, M., Bland, P., Chin, A., Hodgson, S., Ibegbuna, G., Prestwich, G., Samuel, K., et al. (2018) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006954 · Cited by 175
Vat, L. E., Finlay, T., Jan Schuitmaker‐Warnaar, T., Fahy, N., Robinson, P., Boudes, M., Diaz, A., Ferrer, E., Hivert, V., Purman, G., et al. (2020) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12951 · Cited by 173
Patient engagement: What partnering with patient in research is all about
Duffett, L. D. (2016) · Thrombosis Research · doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2016.10.029 · Cited by 173
Maurer, M. E., Mangrum, R., Hilliard, T. S., Amolegbe, A., Carman, K. L., Forsythe, L. P., Mosbacher, R., Lesch, J. K., & Woodward, K. P. (2022) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-021-07104-w · Cited by 170
“I’m not just a guinea pig”: academic and community perceptions of participatory autism research
den Houting, J., Higgins, J., Isaacs, K., Mahony, J., & Pellicano, E. (2021) · Autism · doi:10.1177/1362361320951696 · Cited by 168
Current trends in patient and public involvement in cancer research: A systematic review
Pii, K. H., Schou, L., Piil, K., & Jarden, M. (2018) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12841 · Cited by 168
Kappel, K., & Holmen, S. J. (2019) · Frontiers in Communication · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2019.00055 · Cited by 166
Blackburn, S. J., McLachlan, S., Jowett, S. M., Kinghorn, P., Gill, P. S., Higginbottom, A., Rhodes, C., Stevenson, F. A., & Jinks, C. (2018) · Research Involvement and Engagement · doi:10.1186/s40900-018-0100-8 · Cited by 165
Tembo, D., Hickey, G., Montenegro, C., Chandler, D., Nelson, E., Porter, K., Dikomitis, L., Chambers, M., Chimbari, M., Mumba, N., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n178 · Cited by 163
Self-citationEmpowerment in cancer patients: Does peer support make a difference? A systematic review
Ziegler, E., Hill, J., Lieske, B., Klein, J., Knesebeck, O. V. D., & Kofahl, C. (2022) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.5869 · Cited by 160
Levitan, B. S., Getz, K. A., Eisenstein, E. L., Goldberg, M., Harker, M. J., Hesterlee, S. E., Patrick‐Lake, B., Roberts, J. N., & DiMasi, J. A. (2017) · Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science · doi:10.1177/2168479017716715 · Cited by 158
Abma, T., Cook, T., Rämgård, M., Kleba, M. E., Harris, J., & Wallerstein, N. B. (2017) · Educational Action Research · doi:10.1080/09650792.2017.1329092 · Cited by 157
Staley, K., & Barron, D. (2019) · Research Involvement and Engagement · doi:10.1186/s40900-019-0147-1 · Cited by 157
Measuring Community‐Engaged Research Contexts, Processes, and Outcomes: A Mapping Review
Luger, T. M., HAMILTON, A. B., & True, G. (2020) · Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12458 · Cited by 156
Price, A. I., Schroter, S., Snow, R., Hicks, M. D., Harmston, R., Staniszewska, S. H., Parker, S., & Richards, T. (2018) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020452 · Cited by 155
Self-citationPatients as partners in health research: A scoping review
McCarron, T. L., Clement, F. M., Rasiah, J., Moran, C., Moffat, K., González, A., Wasylak, T., & Santana, M. (2021) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.13272 · Cited by 153
Attitudes and approaches to patient and public involvement across Europe: A systematic review
Biddle, M. S. Y., Gibson, A., & Evans, D. (2020) · Health & Social Care in the Community · doi:10.1111/hsc.13111 · Cited by 152
Gainforth, H. L., Hoekstra, F., McKay, R. C., McBride, C. B., Sweet, S. N., Ginis, K. A. M., Anderson, K. D., Chernesky, J., Clarke, T., Forwell, S. J., et al. (2020) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2020.09.393 · Cited by 151
Stroke survivors’ priorities for research related to life after stroke
Rudberg, A., Berge, E., Laska, A. C., Jutterström, S., Näsman, P., Sunnerhagen, K. S., & Lundström, E. (2020) · Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/10749357.2020.1789829 · Cited by 142
Henni, S. H., Maurud, S., Fuglerud, K. S., & Moen, A. (2022) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-021-12393-1 · Cited by 141
Baines, R., Bradwell, H., Edwards, K., Stevens, S., Prime, S., Tredinnick‐Rowe, J., Sibley, M., & Chatterjee, A. (2022) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.13506 · Cited by 138
Zidaru, T., Morrow, E. M., & Stockley, R. (2021) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.13299 · Cited by 143
Patient and Family Engagement in the ICU: Untapped Opportunities and Underrecognized Challenges
Burns, K. E. A., Misak, C., Herridge, M. S., Meade, M. O., & Oczkowski, S. J. W. (2018) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/rccm.201710-2032ci · Cited by 136
Heath, J., Williamson, H., Williams, L., & Harcourt, D. M. (2018) · Applied Nursing Research · doi:10.1016/j.apnr.2018.06.015 · Cited by 134
Puddephatt, J., Keenan, G. S., Fielden, A. L., Reaves, D. L., Halford, J. C. G., & Hardman, C. A. (2019) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2019.104547 · Cited by 143
Patient and public involvement in dementia research in the European Union: a scoping review
Miah, J., Dawes, P., Edwards, S., Leroi, I., Starling, B., & Parsons, S. (2019) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/s12877-019-1217-9 · Cited by 133
Peters, S., Guccione, L., Francis, J., Best, S., Tavender, E. J., Curran, J., Davies, K., Rowe, S., Palmer, V. J., & Klaic, M. (2024) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-024-01394-4 · Cited by 135
Heckert, A., Forsythe, L. P., Carman, K. L., Frank, L., Hemphill, R., Elstad, E. A., Esmail, L., & Lesch, J. K. (2020) · Research Involvement and Engagement · doi:10.1186/s40900-020-00227-0 · Cited by 130
Dudley, L., Gamble, C. L., Preston, J., Buck, D., The EPIC Patient Advisory Group, Hanley, B., Williamson, P. R., & Young, B. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0128817 · Cited by 129
The power of symbolic capital in patient and public involvement in health research
Locock, L., Boylan, A., Snow, R., & Staniszewska, S. (2017) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12519 · Cited by 128
Self-citationBlack and minority ethnic group involvement in health and social care research: A systematic review
Dawson, S., Campbell, S., Giles, S. J., Morris, R., & Cheraghi‐Sohi, S. (2017) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12597 · Cited by 125
Cook, N., Siddiqi, N., Twiddy, M., & KENYON, R. L. (2019) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026514 · Cited by 124
Vaisson, G., Provencher, T., Dugas, M., Trottier, M.-È., Dansokho, S. C., Colquhoun, H. L., Fagerlin, A., Giguere, A. M. C., Hakim, H., Haslett, L., et al. (2021) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x20984134 · Cited by 124
Modigh, A., Sampaio, F., Moberg, L., & Fredriksson, M. (2021) · Health Policy · doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2021.07.008 · Cited by 123
Han, H., Xu, A., Mendez, K. J. W., Okoye, S. M., Cudjoe, J., Bahouth, M. N., Reese, M., Bone, L., & Himmelfarb, C. D. (2021) · Research Involvement and Engagement · doi:10.1186/s40900-021-00261-6 · Cited by 122
Baines, R., & de Bere, S. R. (2017) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12618 · Cited by 120
Vaughn, L. M., Whetstone, C. M., Boards, A., Busch, M. D., Magnusson, M., & Määttä, S. (2018) · Health & Social Care in the Community · doi:10.1111/hsc.12562 · Cited by 116
Rouncefield‐Swales, A., Harris, J., Carter, B., Bray, L., Bewley, T., & Martin, R. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0252774 · Cited by 115
Morris, C., Simkiss, D., Busk, M., Morris, M., Allard, A., Denness, J., Janssens, A. I. W. A., Stimson, A., Coghill, J., Robinson, K., et al. (2015) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006233 · Cited by 113
Public involvement in research: making sense of the diversity
Oliver, S. R., Liabo, K., Stewart, R. J., & Rees, R. W. (2014) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1177/1355819614551848 · Cited by 113
A Hierarchy of Power: The Place of Patient and Public Involvement in Healthcare Service Development
O’Shea, A., Boaz, A., & Chambers, M. G. A. (2019) · Frontiers in Sociology · doi:10.3389/fsoc.2019.00038 · Cited by 112
Public involvement in health and social sciences research: A concept analysis
Hughes, M., & Duffy, C. M. (2018) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12825 · Cited by 109
Soneson, E., Howarth, E., Ford, T. J., Humphrey, A., Jones, P. B., Coon, J. T., Rogers, M., & Anderson, J. (2020) · Prevention Science · doi:10.1007/s11121-020-01095-6 · Cited by 108
Cook, T., Boote, J. D., Buckley, N., Vougioukalou, S. A., & Wright, M. T. (2017) · Educational Action Research · doi:10.1080/09650792.2017.1326964 · Cited by 106
Interdisciplinary team science and the public: Steps toward a participatory team science.
Tebes, J. K., & Thai, N. D. (2018) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/amp0000281 · Cited by 109
Baldwin, J., Napier, S., Neville, S. J., & Clair, V. W. (2018) · Age and Ageing · doi:10.1093/ageing/afy092 · Cited by 104
Mathie, E., Wythe, H., Munday, D., Millac, P. A. H., Rhodes, G., Roberts, N., Smeeton, N., Poland, F. M., & Jones, J. (2018) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12684 · Cited by 110
Skovlund, P. C., Nielsen, B. K., Thaysen, H. V., Schmidt, H., Finset, A., Hansen, K. A., & Lomborg, K. E. (2020) · Research Involvement and Engagement · doi:10.1186/s40900-020-00214-5 · Cited by 103
Antecedents of unfinished nursing care: a systematic review of the literature
Chiappinotto, S., Papastavrou, E., Efstathiou, G., Andreou, P., Stemmer, R., Ströhm, C., Schubert, M., de Wolf‐Linder, S., Longhini, J., & Palese, A. (2022) · BMC Nursing · doi:10.1186/s12912-022-00890-6 · Cited by 103
Strengthening stakeholder-engaged research and research on stakeholder engagement
Ray, K. N., & Miller, E. P. (2017) · Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research · doi:10.2217/cer-2016-0096 · Cited by 101
A New Normal: Integrating Lived Experience Into Scientific Data Syntheses
Beames, J. R., Kikas, K., O'Gradey-Lee, M., Gale, N., Werner-Seidler, A., Boydell, K. M., & Hudson, J. L. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2021.763005 · Cited by 99
Agyei‐Manu, E., Atkins, N., Lee, B., Rostron, J., Dozier, M., Smith, M. P., & McQuillan, R. (2023) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.13787 · Cited by 99
Adus, S., Macklin, J. A., & Pinto, A. D. (2023) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-023-10098-2 · Cited by 104
Salvador‐Carulla, L., Woods, C., de Miquel, C., & Lukersmith, S. (2024) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29930 · Cited by 108
Banfield, M., Randall, R., O'Brien, M., Hope, S., Gulliver, A., Forbes, O., Morse, A. R., & Griffiths, K. (2018) · International Journal of Mental Health Nursing · doi:10.1111/inm.12482 · Cited by 96
Determining the research priorities for patients with chronic kidney disease not on dialysis
Hemmelgarn, B. R., Pannu, N., Ahmed, S. B., Elliott, M. J., Tam‐Tham, H., Lillie, E., Straus, S. E., Donald, M., Barnieh, L., Chong, G. C., et al. (2016) · Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation · doi:10.1093/ndt/gfw065 · Cited by 96
Kislov, R., Wilson, P. M., Knowles, S. E., & Boaden, R. (2018) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-018-0805-y · Cited by 96
Farooqi, A. M., Jutlla, K., Raghavan, R., Wilson, A. M., Uddin, M. S., Akroyd, C., Patel, N., Campbell-Morris, P. P., & Farooqi, A. (2022) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-021-01489-2 · Cited by 96
How stakeholder participation can contribute to systematic reviews of complex interventions
Harris, J., Croot, L., Thompson, J., & Springett, J. (2015) · Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech-2015-205701 · Cited by 98
Metadata
- Authors
- Brett, J., Staniszewska, S., Mockford, C., Herron‐Marx, S., Hughes, J., Tysall, C., & Suleman, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Warwick (GB)
- Royal College of Nursing Research Institute, School of Health and Social Studies, University of Warwick Coventry UK
- United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Brett, Jo
- Venue
- Health Expectations
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-07-19
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 637-650
- ISSN
- 1369-6513 (ISSN-L)
- 1369-7625
- PMC
- PMC5060910
- OpenAlex
- W2049504028
- Cited by
- 1,598
- References
- 71
- Citations by year
- 2026: 140 · 2025: 167 · 2024: 201 · 2023: 171 · 2022: 151 · 2021: 154 · 2020: 158 · 2019: 133 · 2018: 119 · 2017: 78 · 2016: 55 · 2015: 39 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 16
- FWCI
- 3.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Health Expectations (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Open Research Online - ORO (The Open University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
- United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration
- University of Warwick
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Community Health and Development
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Keywords
- patient and public involvement, health research, social care research, research quality, research questions, research recruitment, research dissemination, implementation of research findings, research stages
- MeSH terms
- Health Services Research, Humans, Patient Participation, Social Welfare, Community-Based Participatory Research
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
