The use of patient and public involvement and engagement in the design and conduct of implementation research: a scoping review.

Amy Mathieson, Lisa Brunton, Paul M Wilson
{"title":"The use of patient and public involvement and engagement in the design and conduct of implementation research: a scoping review.","authors":"Amy Mathieson, Lisa Brunton, Paul M Wilson","doi":"10.1186/s43058-025-00725-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Most implementation research focuses on understanding and changing health professionals' work practices. While Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) in applied health research is recognised as best practice, and is often a requirement for funders globally, little is known about the role of patients and the public in implementation research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Guided by Arksey and O'Malley's framework, we conducted a scoping review to categorise PPIE in the design and conduct of implementation research, including how patients and the public have been involved, the reported impact of patient and public involvement, and the reported benefits and challenges to involving patients and the public in implementation research. We searched four databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and SCOPUS. To be included, studies had to report some form of PPIE in the design and conduct of implementation research. Information about each study was extracted using a structured data extraction form. Data was collated and summarised.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 535 unique records identified, 12 were included. Analysis of the eligible studies found eight different types of PPIE activities. Researchers mostly consulted with patients and members of the public via feedback sessions, committee representation and roundtable discussions. Barriers and enablers were usually researcher related and their attempts to build, maintain, and negotiate relationships with public contributors over time. Resources and financial remuneration were also key. Most studies (n = 7) reported that engaging community members in the design and implementation of community-based programs and trials enhanced cultural appropriateness, and the likelihood of sustainability. However, there was little formal evaluation of the use of PPIE.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study can be used to design and guide future PPIE in implementation research. Given the inconsistent, and often absent, reporting of PPIE activities and barriers and enablers across the included studies, future studies should describe and evaluate the execution of PPIE in implementation research to advance practices in this field.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>The review was registered on Research Registry (reviewregistry1552).</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"6 1","pages":"42"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11987400/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation science communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-025-00725-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Most implementation research focuses on understanding and changing health professionals' work practices. While Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) in applied health research is recognised as best practice, and is often a requirement for funders globally, little is known about the role of patients and the public in implementation research.

Methods: Guided by Arksey and O'Malley's framework, we conducted a scoping review to categorise PPIE in the design and conduct of implementation research, including how patients and the public have been involved, the reported impact of patient and public involvement, and the reported benefits and challenges to involving patients and the public in implementation research. We searched four databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and SCOPUS. To be included, studies had to report some form of PPIE in the design and conduct of implementation research. Information about each study was extracted using a structured data extraction form. Data was collated and summarised.

Results: Of the 535 unique records identified, 12 were included. Analysis of the eligible studies found eight different types of PPIE activities. Researchers mostly consulted with patients and members of the public via feedback sessions, committee representation and roundtable discussions. Barriers and enablers were usually researcher related and their attempts to build, maintain, and negotiate relationships with public contributors over time. Resources and financial remuneration were also key. Most studies (n = 7) reported that engaging community members in the design and implementation of community-based programs and trials enhanced cultural appropriateness, and the likelihood of sustainability. However, there was little formal evaluation of the use of PPIE.

Conclusion: This study can be used to design and guide future PPIE in implementation research. Given the inconsistent, and often absent, reporting of PPIE activities and barriers and enablers across the included studies, future studies should describe and evaluate the execution of PPIE in implementation research to advance practices in this field.

Registration: The review was registered on Research Registry (reviewregistry1552).

在实施研究的设计和实施过程中利用病人和公众的参与和参与:范围审查。
背景:大多数实施研究侧重于理解和改变卫生专业人员的工作实践。虽然应用卫生研究中的患者和公众参与和参与(PPIE)被认为是最佳做法,而且往往是全球资助者的一项要求,但人们对患者和公众在实施研究中的作用知之甚少。方法:在Arksey和O'Malley框架的指导下,我们进行了范围审查,对PPIE在实施研究的设计和实施中进行了分类,包括患者和公众如何参与,患者和公众参与的报告影响,以及将患者和公众纳入实施研究的报告收益和挑战。我们检索了四个数据库:MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL和SCOPUS。为了纳入研究,必须报告在设计和实施研究时采用某种形式的公私合作政策。使用结构化数据提取表提取每项研究的信息。对数据进行了整理和总结。结果:在确定的535条唯一记录中,有12条被纳入。对符合条件的研究的分析发现了八种不同类型的PPIE活动。研究人员主要通过反馈会议、委员会代表和圆桌讨论向患者和公众征求意见。障碍和促成因素通常与研究人员有关,他们试图随着时间的推移与公共贡献者建立、维护和协商关系。资源和财务报酬也是关键。大多数研究(n = 7)报告说,让社区成员参与社区项目和试验的设计和实施可以增强文化适宜性和可持续性的可能性。然而,对PPIE的使用很少有正式的评价。结论:本研究可用于设计和指导未来PPIE的实施研究。鉴于在纳入的研究中对PPIE活动、障碍和推动因素的报道不一致,而且经常缺失,未来的研究应该描述和评估PPIE在实施研究中的执行情况,以推进该领域的实践。注册:该综述已在Research Registry注册(reviewregistry1552)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信