CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,643Mental Health and Patient InvolvementHealth Policy Implementation ScienceMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research

Open access
Staniszewska, S., Brett, J., Simera, I., Seers, K., Mockford, C., Goodlad, S., Altman, D. G., Moher, D. +8 more·2017·Research Involvement and Engagement
DOI 10.1186/s40900-017-0062-2PMC PMC5611595
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

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. To develop international consensus on the key items to report to enhance the quality, transparency, and consistency of the PPI evidence base. To collaboratively involve patients as research partners at all stages in the development of GRIPP2. The EQUATOR method for developing reporting guidelines was used. The original GRIPP (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public) checklist was revised, based on updated systematic review evidence. A three round Delphi survey was used to develop consensus on items to be included in the guideline. A subsequent face-to-face meeting produced agreement on items not reaching consensus during the Delphi process. One hundred forty-three participants agreed to participate in round one, with an 86% (123/143) response for round two and a 78% (112/143) response for round three. The Delphi survey identified the need for long form (LF) and short form (SF) versions. GRIPP2-LF includes 34 items on aims, definitions, concepts and theory, methods, stages and nature of involvement, context, capture or measurement of impact, outcomes, economic assessment, and reflections and is suitable for studies where the main focus is PPI. GRIPP2-SF includes five items on aims, methods, results, outcomes, and critical perspective and is suitable for studies where PPI is a secondary focus. GRIPP2-LF and GRIPP2-SF represent the first international evidence based, consensus informed guidance for reporting patient and public involvement in research. Both versions of GRIPP2 aim to improve the quality, transparency, and consistency of the international PPI evidence base, to ensure PPI practice is based on the best evidence. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on The BMJ and Research Involvement and Engagement journal websites.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

GRIPP2-LF and GRIPP2-SF are consensus-based reporting checklists for patient and public involvement (PPI) in research, developed using EQUATOR methods, a three-round Delphi survey, and a consensus meeting. GRIPP2-LF has 34 items for studies where PPI is the primary focus; GRIPP2-SF has five items for studies where PPI is a secondary focus.

Key findings

  • The Delphi survey included 143 participants in round one, with an 86% (123/143) response in round two and 78% (112/143) in round three. The five core GRIPP2-SF items each gained a median score of 9 in round two and again in round three.
  • GRIPP2-LF includes 34 items covering aims, definitions, concepts and theory, methods, stages and nature of involvement, context, capture or measurement of impact, outcomes, economic assessment, and reflections.
  • GRIPP2-SF includes five items: aims, methods, results, outcomes, and critical perspective.
  • The final consensus meeting involved 25 key experts, including patient partners and carers (n = 8), researchers (n = 9), clinicians (n = 6), and healthcare journal editors (n = 2), and finalised consensus on seven items on the threshold of consensus.

Methods

  • The study used the EQUATOR method for developing reporting guidelines: updated systematic review evidence, a three-round Delphi survey with international PPI stakeholders, and a face-to-face consensus meeting.
  • Delphi participants rated items on a 1–10 scale; median ≥8 in rounds one and two indicated positive consensus, median ≤5 excluded items, and items scoring 6 or 7 in one round and ≥8 in the other were voted on again in round three, with positive consensus if median ≥8 in two rounds.
  • Three patient partners were recruited to the research team and were involved in refining research questions, developing the search strategy, interpreting results, selecting original GRIPP items, piloting the Delphi survey, recruiting participants, collating comments, adapting items, and writing up the study.

Limitations

  • The paper states that usability testing has not yet been possible to understand how GRIPP2 works in practice with different study designs, and that the final consensus meeting did not include international experts because of a restricted budget, which might have limited the discussion from an international perspective.
  • The paper states that GRIPP2 is conceptualised within the culture and language of research, that a patient or service-user version is needed but not yet developed, and that it is not possible to be prescriptive about the exact content of each item because the current evidence base is not advanced enough.
  • The paper also states that the EQUATOR consensus methods limited possible patient partner input into identifying or developing methods to gain consensus, that feedback time between Delphi rounds was short, and that scheduling meetings between researchers and patient partners was difficult; further refinements are expected as the PPI evidence base evolves.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s40900-017-0062-2

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 23 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    The Delphi survey identified the need for long form (LF) and short form (SF) versions of the guideline.

    “The Delphi survey identified the need for long form (LF) and short form (SF) versions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Premisecitation

    The original GRIPP checklist's development drew on systematic review evidence, without broader input from the international PPI research community.

    “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].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [2] Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2014;17:637–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x . source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [3] Mockford C, Staniszewska S, Griffiths F, Herron-Marx S. The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care. 2012;24:28–38. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzr066 . source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [4] Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. Patient. 2014;7:387–95. doi: 10.1007/s40271-014-0065-0 . source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Interpretationreasoning

    Inconsistent reporting creates a fragmented evidence base making it difficult to draw together understanding of what works, for whom, why, and in what context.

    “Inconsistent reporting creates a fragmented evidence base making it difficult to draw together our collective understanding of what works, for whom, why, and in what context.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Premisecitation

    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].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [1] Staniszewska S, Brett J, Mockford C, Barber R. The GRIPP checklist: strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:391–9. doi: 10.1017/S0266462311000481 . source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation

    Inadequate reporting of PPI creates problems for systematic reviews that attempt to synthesise PPI evidence.

    “Inadequate reporting can create problems for systematic reviews that attempt to synthesise PPI evidence [2–4].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [2] Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2014;17:637–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x . source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [3] Mockford C, Staniszewska S, Griffiths F, Herron-Marx S. The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care. 2012;24:28–38. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzr066 . source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [4] Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. Patient. 2014;7:387–95. doi: 10.1007/s40271-014-0065-0 . source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 17
  • May combine two claims. 7

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingown data

    GRIPP2-LF includes 34 items on aims, definitions, concepts and theory, methods, stages and nature of involvement, context, capture or measurement of impact, outcomes, economic assessment, and reflections.

    “GRIPP2-LF includes 34 items on aims, definitions, concepts and theory, methods, stages and nature of involvement, context, capture or measurement of impact, outcomes, economic assessment, and reflections and is suitable for studies where the main focus is PPI.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    One hundred forty-three participants agreed to participate in round one, with an 86% (123/143) response for round two and a 78% (112/143) response for round three.

    “One hundred forty-three participants agreed to participate in round one, with an 86% (123/143) response for round two and a 78% (112/143) response for round three.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The consensus meeting involved eight patient partners in total.

    “The consensus meeting involved eight patient partners in total, and the three patient partners recruited to the research team were involved in the write-up of the study and are coauthors in papers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingown data

    GRIPP2-SF includes five items on aims, methods, results, outcomes, and critical perspective.

    “GRIPP2-SF includes five items on aims, methods, results, outcomes, and critical perspective and is suitable for studies where PPI is a secondary focus.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Qualitative comments suggested the need to reword some items to simplify them and ensure clarity of meaning.

    “Qualitative comments suggested the need to reword some items to simplify them and ensure clarity of meaning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The five core items that comprise GRIPP2-SF all gained a median score of 9 in round two and again in round three, indicating consensus was reached on the short form version.

    “The five core items that comprise the GRIPP2-SF all gained a median score of 9 in round two. Thus all five were included in round three and again gained median scores of 9, indicating that consensus was reached on the short form version.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    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.”
    • Also stated in: § Background · plain
      “While the PPI evidence base has expanded significantly over the past decade, the reporting of PPI in papers has often been inconsistent and partial, with little information about the context, process, and impact of public involvement and with limited reporting of conceptualisation or theorisation [1–4].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [1] Staniszewska S, Brett J, Mockford C, Barber R. The GRIPP checklist: strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:391–9. doi: 10.1017/S0266462311000481 . source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [2] Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2014;17:637–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x . source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [3] Mockford C, Staniszewska S, Griffiths F, Herron-Marx S. The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care. 2012;24:28–38. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzr066 . source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [4] Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. Patient. 2014;7:387–95. doi: 10.1007/s40271-014-0065-0 . source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    A subsequent face-to-face meeting produced agreement on items not reaching consensus during the Delphi process.

    “A subsequent face-to-face meeting produced agreement on items not reaching consensus during the Delphi process.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Achieving consensus is acknowledged as a crucial step in producing a reporting guideline.

    “Achieving consensus is now acknowledged as a crucial step in producing a reporting guideline [5].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [5] Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000217. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217 . source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    A three round Delphi survey was used to develop consensus on items to be included in the guideline.

    “A three round Delphi survey was used to develop consensus on items to be included in the guideline.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The final consensus meeting did not include international experts because of a restricted budget, which might have limited the discussion from an international perspective.

    “The final consensus meeting did not include international experts because of a restricted budget, which might have limited the discussion from an international perspective.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    No usability testing has yet been conducted to understand how GRIPP2 works in practice with different types of study designs.

    “In addition, it has not yet been possible to conduct any usability testing to understand how GRIPP2 works in practice with different types of study designs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    GRIPP2-SF is suitable for studies where PPI is a secondary focus.

    “GRIPP2-SF includes five items on aims, methods, results, outcomes, and critical perspective and is suitable for studies where PPI is a secondary focus.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The success of PPI in this study may relate to several factors, including patient partners' prior training, researchers' experience, and good relationships.

    “The success of the PPI in this study may relate to several factors. Firstly, the patient partners had received training around research methods in previous studies and were actively involved in a patient and public involvement group attached to the University of Warwick Medical School. Furthermore, the researchers were experienced at involving patient partners in their research [22]. Finally, good”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [22] Stephens R, Staniszewska S. One small step…. Research Involvement and Engagement; 2015. p. 1. doi: 10.1186/s40900-015-0005-8 . source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [4] Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. Patient. 2014;7:387–95. doi: 10.1007/s40271-014-0065-0 . source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [21] Wilson P, Mathie E, Keenan J, et al. ReseArch with Patient and Public involvement: a RealisT evaluation—the RAPPORT study: Health Services and Delivery Research; 2015. p. 3. doi: 10.3310/hsdr03380 . source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Higher quality reporting will gradually lead to the development of a stronger PPI evidence base that will facilitate more effective synthesis of PPI studies.

    “Higher quality reporting will gradually lead to the development of a stronger PPI evidence base that will facilitate more effective synthesis of PPI studies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    GRIPP2-LF is suitable for studies where the main focus is PPI.

    “GRIPP2-LF includes 34 items on aims, definitions, concepts and theory, methods, stages and nature of involvement, context, capture or measurement of impact, outcomes, economic assessment, and reflections and is suitable for studies where the main focus is PPI.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    More effective synthesis of the PPI evidence base will help to identify best practice, avoid poor practice, and contribute to research that is acceptable, relevant, appropriate, and high quality.

    “More effective synthesis of the PPI evidence base will help to identify best practice, avoid poor practice, and contribute to research that is acceptable, relevant, appropriate, and high quality and that has the potential to generate benefit for all.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisecitation

    PPI is at a pre-paradigm stage in its development and recognition.

    “Such evolution is particularly important for GRIPP2 because PPI is at a pre-paradigm stage in its development and recognition, reflecting Kuhn’s conceptualisation of how science changes over time with significant paradigm shifts that generate new ways of thinking [20].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [20] Kuhn TS. The structure of scientific Revolutions. 50th anniversary. Ian Hacking (Introd.). 4th ed: University of Chicago Press; 2012. p. 264. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226458144.001.0001 . source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    GRIPP2-LF and GRIPP2-SF are conceptualised within the culture and language of research.

    “A further limitation is that GRIPP2-LF and GRIPP2-SF are conceptualised within the culture and language of research.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Guidelines such as the CONSORT statement for randomised controlled trials are regularly updated to reflect changes in health research more widely.

    “Guidelines such as the CONSORT statement for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are regularly updated to reflect changes in health research more widely [19].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [19] Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c869 . source

      Not checked in the free run.

20 of 20

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Staley K. Exploring impact: public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2009. http://www.invo.org.uk/posttypepublication/exploring-impact-public-involvement-in-nhs-public-health-and-social-care-research/ .

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Staniszewska, S., Brett, J., Simera, I., Seers, K., Mockford, C., Goodlad, S., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., Barber, R., Denegri, S., Entwistle, A., Littlejohns, P., Morris, C., Suleman, R., Thomas, V., & Tysall, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • Oxford Brookes University (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Coventry University (GB)
  • Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (CA)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (GB)
Corresponding author
Staniszewska, S.
ORCID
Venue
Research Involvement and Engagement
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2017-08-02
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
13-13
ISSN
2056-7529 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s40900-017-0062-2
PMC
PMC5611595
OpenAlex
W2739751169
Semantic Scholar
a636c43b2bfbe8ccca687ee5309af8ef920128fa
Cited by
1,643
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 98 · 2025: 192 · 2024: 327 · 2023: 265 · 2022: 238 · 2021: 211 · 2020: 145 · 2019: 95 · 2018: 61 · 2017: 8
FWCI
136.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Research Involvement and Engagement (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Radar (Oxford Brookes University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
  • Cancer Research UK (16895)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • University of Warwick
  • King's College London
  • Warwick Medical School
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 guidelines, GRIPP2, reporting checklist, research collaboration, patient involvement in research, Delphi consensus, EQUATOR Network, research transparency

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

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