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
“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]
The 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
“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
What do I want from health research and researchers when I am a patient?
Chalmers, I. (1995) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.310.6990.1315 · Cited by 205
Hanley, B., Truesdale, A., King, A., Elbourne, D., & Chalmers, I. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7285.519 · Cited by 184
Involving people with learning disabilities in research: issues and possibilities
Gilbert, T. P. (2004) · Health & Social Care in the Community · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2524.2004.00499.x · Cited by 183
Elliott, E., Watson, A. J., & Harries, U. (2002) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1046/j.1369-6513.2002.00158.x · Cited by 153
Community‐Based Participatory Research: Assessing the Evidence: Summary
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) · Cited by 145
The rights of patients in research
Goodare, H., & Smith, R. W. (1995) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.310.6990.1277 · Cited by 129
Smith, E., Ross, F., Donovan, S., Manthorpe, J., Brearley, S., Sitzia, J., & Beresford, P. (2008) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.09.010 · Cited by 113
User involvement in the development of a research bid: barriers, enablers and impacts1
Staniszewska, S., Jones, N., Newburn, M., & Marshall, S. (2007) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00436.x · Cited by 112
Self-citationMenon, D., & Stafinski, T. (2008) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00501.x · Cited by 108
Caron-Flinterman, J. F., Broerse, J. E. W., Teerling, J., & Bunders, J. (2005) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2005.00337.x · Cited by 108
Hubbard, G., Kidd, L., Donaghy, E., McDonald, C., & Kearney, N. (2006) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2006.02.009 · Cited by 104
The impact of service user involvement in research
Minogue, V., Boness, J., Brown, A., & Girdlestone, J. (2005) · International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance · doi:10.1108/09526860510588133 · Cited by 104
Ethical Dilemmas in Participatory Action Research: A Case Study From the Disability Community
Minkler, M., Fadem, P., Perry, M., Blum, K., Moore, L., & Rogers, J. (2002) · Health Education & Behavior · doi:10.1177/109019810202900104 · Cited by 103
Psychosocial intervention for rural women with breast cancer
Angell, K. L., Kreshka, M. A., McCoy, R., Donnelly, P., Turner‐Cobb, J. M., Graddy, K., KRAEMER, H. C., & Koopman, C. (2003) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20316.x · Cited by 102
Involving older people in research: methodological issues
Ross, F., Donovan, S., Brearley, S. A., Victor, C. R., Cottee, M., Crowther, P., & Clark, E. (2005) · Health & Social Care in the Community · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2524.2005.00560.x · Cited by 102
Patient 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
Citizens’ juries in planning research priorities: process, engagement and outcome
Gooberman‐Hill, R., Horwood, J. P., & Calnan, M. (2008) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00502.x · Cited by 97
A Case Study in the Use of Community‐Based Participatory Research in Public Health Nursing
Savage, C. L., Xu, Y., Lee, R., Rose, B. L., Kappesser, M., & Anthony, J. S. (2006) · Public Health Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1525-1446.2006.00585.x · Cited by 94
Lindenmeyer, A., Hearnshaw, H., Sturt, J. A., Ormerod, R., & Aitchison, G. (2007) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00451.x · Cited by 88
Wright, D. N. M., Corner, J. L., Hopkinson, J. B., & Foster, C. L. (2006) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2006.00353.x · Cited by 86
PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH: LESSONS LEARNED WITH ABORIGINAL GRANDMOTHERS
Dickson, G. (2001) · Health Care For Women International · doi:10.1080/073993301317094290 · Cited by 81
A service users’ research advisory group from the perspectives of both service users and researchers
Rhodes, P., Nocon, A., Booth, M., Chowdrey, M. Y., Fabian, A., Lambert, N., Mohammed, F., & Walgrove, T. (2002) · Health & Social Care in the Community · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2524.2002.00376.x · Cited by 78
How can health service users contribute to the NHS research and development programme?
Oliver, S. R. (1995) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.310.6990.1318 · Cited by 75
Ali, K., Roffe, C., & Crome, P. (2006) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.0000204053.36966.80 · Cited by 74
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
Caron-Flinterman, J. F., Broerse, J. E. W., Teerling, J., van Alst, M. L. Y., Klaasen, S., Swart, L., & Bunders, J. (2006) · Science and Public Policy · doi:10.3152/147154306781778993 · Cited by 67
Public Involvement in Breast Cancer Research: An Analysis and Model for Future Research
McCormick, S., Brody, J. G., Brown, P., & Polk, R. (2004) · International Journal of Health Services · doi:10.2190/hpxb-9rk8-etvm-rvea · Cited by 65
Consumer involvement in health research: fact or fiction?
Telford, R., Beverley, C., Cooper, C. L., & Boote, J. D. (2002) · British Journal of Clinical Governance · doi:10.1108/14664100210427606 · Cited by 63
Patient and clinician collaboration in the design of a national randomized breast cancer trial
Marsden, J., & Bradburn, J. (2004) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2004.00232.x · Cited by 61
Engaging Communities in Area-based Regeneration: The Role of Participatory Evaluation
Dobbs, L., & Moore, C. (2002) · Policy Studies · doi:10.1080/0144287022000045966 · Cited by 58
Wyatt, K. M., Carter, M., Mahtani, V. M., Barnard, A., Hawton, A., & Britten, N. (2008) · Family Practice · doi:10.1093/fampra/cmn019 · Cited by 56
Consumer involvement in decisions about what health-related research is funded
O’Donnell, M., & Entwistle, V. (2004) · Health Policy · doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2004.04.004 · Cited by 54
Andejeski, Y., Bisceglio, I. T., Dickersin, K., Johnson, J. E., Robinson, S. I., Smith, H. S., Visco, F. M., & Rich, I. M. (2002) · Journal of Women s Health & Gender-Based Medicine · doi:10.1089/152460902317586010 · Cited by 54
Consumer involvement in the health technology assessment program
Royle, J., & Oliver, S. R. (2004) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462304001412 · Cited by 52
Survey on the involvement of consumers in health technology assessment programs
Hailey, D. M., & Nordwall, M. (2006) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462306051427 · Cited by 49
Immigrant Women Implementing Participatory Research in Health Promotion
Meyer, M., Torres, S., Cermeño, N., MacLean, L. M., & Monzón, R. (2003) · Western Journal of Nursing Research · doi:10.1177/0193945903256707 · Cited by 49
Academic Consumer Researchers: A Bridge Between Consumers and Researchers
Griffiths, K. M., Jorm, A. F., & Christensen, H. M. (2004) · Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1080/j.1440-1614.2004.01337.x · Cited by 49
Involving communities in the design of clinical trial protocols: The BAN Study in Lilongwe, Malawi
Corneli, A. L., Piwoz, E., Bentley, M. E., Moses, A., Nkhoma, J., Tohill, B. C., Adair, L. S., Mtimuni, B., Ahmed, Y., Duerr, A. C., et al. (2006) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2006.08.003 · Cited by 46
Guarino, P., Elbourne, D. R., Carpenter, J. R., & Peduzzi, P. N. (2006) · Clinical Trials · doi:10.1191/1740774506cn133oa · Cited by 44
Involving users in evaluation: The social relations of user participation in health research
Truman, C., & Raine, P. (2001) · Critical Public Health · doi:10.1080/09581590110066667 · Cited by 43
Langston, A. L., McCallum, M., Campbell, M., Robertson, C., & Ralston, S. H. (2005) · Clinical Trials · doi:10.1191/1740774505cn065oa · Cited by 39
Partnership research with older people – moving towards making the rhetoric a reality
Reed, J., Weiner, R., & Cook, G. A. (2004) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2004.00920.x · Cited by 39
Consumers leading public consultation: the general public's knowledge of stroke
Morgan, L. (2004) · Family Practice · doi:10.1093/fampra/cmh709 · Cited by 38
Funding community-based participatory research: lessons learned
Plumb, M., Price, W., & Lynch, M. (2004) · Journal of Interprofessional Care · doi:10.1080/13561820400011792 · Cited by 36
Cornes, M., Peardon, J., Manthorpe, J., & The 3YO Project Team (2008) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00513.x · Cited by 35
Involving users in low back pain research
Ong, B. N., & Hooper, H. (2003) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1046/j.1369-7625.2003.00230.x · Cited by 35
The effect of involvement in participatory research on parent researchers in a Sure Start programme
Rowe, A. (2006) · Health & Social Care in the Community · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2524.2006.00632.x · Cited by 33
Eliciting users' views of ECT in two mental health trusts with a user-designed questionnaire
Philpot, M. P., Collins, C., Trivedi, P., Treloar, A. J., Gallacher, S., & Rose, D. S. (2004) · Journal of Mental Health · doi:10.1080/09638230410001729843 · Cited by 33
Burrus, B., Liburd, L. C., & Burroughs, A. (1998) · Journal of Community Health · doi:10.1023/a:1018718803890 · Cited by 30
Cases for Change: User Involvement in Mental Health Services and Research
Clark, M., Glasby, J., & Lester, H. (2004) · Cited by 28
Andejeski, Y., Breslau, E. S., Hart, E., Lythcott, N., Alexander, L. L., Rich, I. M., Bisceglio, I. T., Smith, H. S., & Visco, F. M. (2002) · Journal of Women s Health & Gender-Based Medicine · doi:10.1089/152460902753645263 · Cited by 27
Howe, A. C., MacDonald, H., Barrett, B., & Little, B. (2006) · Primary Health Care Research & Development · doi:10.1191/1463423606pc269oa · Cited by 26
Paterson, C. (2004) · Complementary Therapies in Nursing and Midwifery · doi:10.1016/j.ctnm.2004.02.006 · Cited by 26
Godfrey, M. (2004) · Practice · doi:10.1080/0950315042000306697 · Cited by 18
Why don't health researchers report consumer involvement?
Chambers, R. M. (2004) · Quality in primary care · Cited by 16
User involvement in clinical audit: a review of developments and issues of good practice*
Kelson, M. (1996) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.1996.tb00034.x · Cited by 14
Involving patients as advisors in pharmacy practice research: what are the benefits?
Sutton, J. W., & Weiss, M. (2008) · International Journal of Pharmacy Practice · doi:10.1211/ijpp.16.4.0005 · Cited by 14
The PC 11 Report. An Evaluation of Consumer Involvement in the London Primary Care Studies Programme
Wyatt, K. M., Carter, M., Mahtani, V., Barnard, A., Hawton, A., & Britten, N. (2008) · Cited by 10
Service users' views of a self-help pack for anxiety
Lucock, M. P., Mirza, M., & Sharma, I. (2007) · Journal of Mental Health · doi:10.1080/09638230701494837 · Cited by 4
A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on NHS healthcare services
Mockford, C., Staniszewska, S. H., Griffiths, F. E., & Herron‐Marx, S. (2026) · University of Warwick · doi:10.82444/warw.33672574 · Cited by 3
Self-citation
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
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
