The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 23 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
10 Not checked yet · 7 Own result · 6 Own method · 6 Own interpretation · 1 Supported so far
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Delphi survey identified the need for long form (LF) and short form (SF) versions.”
§ GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research > Abstract > Results
plaindirectn = 3- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the 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].”
§ GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research > Background
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [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 yetcites [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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research > Background
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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].”
§ GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research > Background
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Inadequate reporting can create problems for systematic reviews that attempt to synthesise PPI evidence [2–4].”
§ GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research > Background
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [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 yetcites [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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The original GRIPP (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public) checklist was revised, based on updated systematic review evidence.”
§ GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research > Abstract > Methods
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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].”
§ GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research > Background
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The study used the EQUATOR method for developing reporting guidelines [5], which included: systematic review evidence; a three stage Delphi survey including key stakeholders in the field of PPI; and a face-to-face collaborative meeting to develop consensus on items outstanding from the Delphi survey.”
§ GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research > GRIPP2 reporting checklist development methods
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“GRIPP2-LF and GRIPP2-SF represent the first international evidence based, consensus informed guidance for reporting patient and public involvement in research.”
§ GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research > Abstract > Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the 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].”
§ GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research > Discussion and limitations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [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 yetcites [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 yetcites [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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 7
- Probably not a substantial claim. 17
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the 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.”
- 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].”
§ GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research > Abstract > Background
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [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
The Reporting of Methods section says descriptions of PPI activity were often sparse and inconsistent. Reporting of Context and Process says context and process were described in varying detail and rarely linked to impact; The Level of Detail About Impact says reporting was inadequate to understand the difference PPI made. Together these support the citing sentence’s account of why inconsistent reporting limits understanding. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Supportedcites [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
In “The nature of impact” (page not supplied), the review says reports of PPI impacts were often brief, lacked detail and were inconsistent. “Context and process of PPI” (page not supplied) says the evidence base lacks the detail needed to understand impact in context; the conclusion links better reporting to evaluating what works, for whom and in what circumstances. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Background · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research > Abstract > Results
plainn = 3- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research > GRIPP2 reporting checklist development methods
plainn = 8- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Qualitative comments suggested the need to reword some items to simplify them and ensure clarity of meaning.”
§ GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research > GRIPP2 reporting checklist development methods
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research > GRIPP2 reporting checklist development methods
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A subsequent face-to-face meeting produced agreement on items not reaching consensus during the Delphi process.”
§ GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research > Abstract > Methods
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Achieving consensus is now acknowledged as a crucial step in producing a reporting guideline [5].”
§ GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research > Background
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A three round Delphi survey was used to develop consensus on items to be included in the guideline.”
§ GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research > Abstract > Methods
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The final consensus meeting did not include international experts because of a restricted budget, which might have limited the discussion from an international perspective.”
§ GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research > Discussion and limitations
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research > Discussion and limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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”
§ GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research > Discussion and limitations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [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 yetcites [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
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Higher quality reporting will gradually lead to the development of a stronger PPI evidence base that will facilitate more effective synthesis of PPI studies.”
§ GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research > Scope and illustration of use
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research > Discussion and limitations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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].”
§ GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research > Discussion and limitations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A further limitation is that GRIPP2-LF and GRIPP2-SF are conceptualised within the culture and language of research.”
§ GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research > Discussion and limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Guidelines such as the CONSORT statement for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are regularly updated to reflect changes in health research more widely [19].”
§ GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research > Discussion and limitations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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 says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Our PPIE strategy is presented in accordance with the GRIPP2 (short form) reporting guidelines [35].”
From Layering perspectives: a structured approach to meaningful patient and public involvement and engagement in the RETURN dental trial (2026) · cites this paper as [35]
Citations
Cites
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition
Kuhn, T. S., & Hacking, I. (2012) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226458144.001.0001 · Cited by 21,170
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 · cited 1×
“Guidelines such as the CONSORT statement for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are regularly updated to reflect changes in health research more widely [19].”
MethodSelf-citationTowards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative.
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., de Vet, H. C. W., et al. (2003) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-138-1-200301070-00010 · Cited by 3,219
Self-citationTowards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7379.41 · Cited by 3,215
Self-citationPower in movement: social movements, collective action and politics
(1995) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.32-4208 · Cited by 1,853
Patient engagement in research: a systematic review
Domecq, J. P., Prutsky, G., Elraiyah, T., Wang, Z., Nabhan, M., Shippee, N., Brito, J. P., Boehmer, K., Hasan, R., Firwana, B., et al. (2014) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-89 · Cited by 1,773
Brett, 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
Self-citationGuidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., Simera, I., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217 · Cited by 1,437 · cited 3×
“Achieving consensus is now acknowledged as a crucial step in producing a reporting guideline [5].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-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 · cited 1×
“Finally, good relationships and ways of working were established, which are known as key factors for facilitating high quality PPI [4, 21].”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 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
Collins, G. S., Moons, K. G. M., Dhiman, P., Riley, R. D., Beam, A. L., Van Calster, B., Ghassemi, M., Liu, X., Reitsma, J. B., van Smeden, M., et al. (2024) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj-2023-078378 · Cited by 4,718
Research 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
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
Calvert, M., Kyte, D., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Slade, A., Chan, A.-W., King, M. T., and the SPIRIT-PRO Group, Hunn, A., Bottomley, A., Regnault, A., et al. (2018) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2017.21903 · Cited by 814
Self-citationHusereau, 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-citation
Metadata
- 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
- Published
- 2017-08-02
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 13-13
- ISSN
- 2056-7529 (ISSN-L)
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
