Public Involvement in a Systematic Review Project: Reporting Our Approach Using the ACTIVE Framework

IF 3 3区医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

Health Expectations Pub Date : 2025-06-30 DOI:10.1111/hex.70323

Carmel McGrath, Sarah R. Davies, Ifra Ali, Blessing Dick, Prakash Dewani, Clare E. French

{"title":"Public Involvement in a Systematic Review Project: Reporting Our Approach Using the ACTIVE Framework","authors":"Carmel McGrath, Sarah R. Davies, Ifra Ali, Blessing Dick, Prakash Dewani, Clare E. French","doi":"10.1111/hex.70323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Public involvement in research improves its relevance and accessibility to ensure it reflects the population it serves. However, there is a lack of information about how patients and the public are involved in shaping systematic reviews. There is also a need to address the lack of diversity in public involvement, particularly around the inclusion of underserved communities. This paper outlines the practical approaches taken to involve a diverse group of public contributors in a systematic review process and offers recommendations to support future practices.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This paper uses the ACTIVE framework developed by Pollock et al. (2019) to structure our reflections on public involvement in an NIHR-funded systematic review project on the effectiveness of interventions used to increase vaccination uptake.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>We present the practical approaches used to recruit and engage a diverse group of public contributors in a systematic review project. They had continuous, hands-on involvement in various aspects of the systematic review process. Our approach enabled the public involvement group to play an integral role in adapting and refining a coding framework, contributing to the development and refining of codes and categories used for the analysis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion</h3>\n \n <p>Our paper highlights the importance of involving public contributors who have a range of experiences and backgrounds in the systematic review process. By investing time in relationship-building, creating a safe environment and recruiting a diverse group of contributors, we gained richer insights that enhanced the coding framework. The complexity and nature of the methodology could make it challenging to identify where public contributors can make a real difference to research. Our experiences demonstrate that such involvement is possible and generates mutual benefits, including research that is better designed to reflect the diversity of the population.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>This paper outlines the steps undertaken to involve public contributors in the systematic review process. Key suggestions include investing time to build relationships, providing ongoing feedback, incorporating creative activities and developing strategies for disseminating research findings to wider audiences. These recommendations build on existing guidance and aim to support researchers in effectively involving public contributors in the systematic review process.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patient or Public Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>All public contributors working on the vaccination uptake project have been involved in reviewing this paper. Two public contributors P.D. and B.D. are also co-authors and have provided input to the writing and review of this manuscript.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"28 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hex.70323","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70323","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Public involvement in research improves its relevance and accessibility to ensure it reflects the population it serves. However, there is a lack of information about how patients and the public are involved in shaping systematic reviews. There is also a need to address the lack of diversity in public involvement, particularly around the inclusion of underserved communities. This paper outlines the practical approaches taken to involve a diverse group of public contributors in a systematic review process and offers recommendations to support future practices.

Methods

This paper uses the ACTIVE framework developed by Pollock et al. (2019) to structure our reflections on public involvement in an NIHR-funded systematic review project on the effectiveness of interventions used to increase vaccination uptake.

Results

We present the practical approaches used to recruit and engage a diverse group of public contributors in a systematic review project. They had continuous, hands-on involvement in various aspects of the systematic review process. Our approach enabled the public involvement group to play an integral role in adapting and refining a coding framework, contributing to the development and refining of codes and categories used for the analysis.

Discussion

Our paper highlights the importance of involving public contributors who have a range of experiences and backgrounds in the systematic review process. By investing time in relationship-building, creating a safe environment and recruiting a diverse group of contributors, we gained richer insights that enhanced the coding framework. The complexity and nature of the methodology could make it challenging to identify where public contributors can make a real difference to research. Our experiences demonstrate that such involvement is possible and generates mutual benefits, including research that is better designed to reflect the diversity of the population.

Conclusion

This paper outlines the steps undertaken to involve public contributors in the systematic review process. Key suggestions include investing time to build relationships, providing ongoing feedback, incorporating creative activities and developing strategies for disseminating research findings to wider audiences. These recommendations build on existing guidance and aim to support researchers in effectively involving public contributors in the systematic review process.

Patient or Public Contribution

All public contributors working on the vaccination uptake project have been involved in reviewing this paper. Two public contributors P.D. and B.D. are also co-authors and have provided input to the writing and review of this manuscript.

查看原文本刊更多论文

公众参与系统检讨计划：使用主动架构报告我们的方法

公众参与研究可提高研究的相关性和可及性，以确保研究反映其所服务的人口。然而，缺乏关于患者和公众如何参与形成系统评价的信息。还需要解决公众参与缺乏多样性的问题，特别是在纳入服务不足的社区方面。本文概述了在系统审查过程中涉及不同公共贡献者群体的实际方法，并提供了支持未来实践的建议。本文使用Pollock等人（2019）开发的ACTIVE框架来构建我们对公众参与国家卫生研究院资助的系统评价项目的思考，该项目旨在评估用于增加疫苗接种的干预措施的有效性。我们提出了在系统审查项目中招募和吸引不同群体的公共贡献者的实际方法。他们在系统审查过程的各个方面都有持续的、实际的参与。我们的方法使公众参与小组在调整和完善编码框架方面发挥了不可或缺的作用，有助于开发和完善用于分析的代码和类别。我们的论文强调了在系统审查过程中让具有一系列经验和背景的公共贡献者参与的重要性。通过投入时间建立关系，创造一个安全的环境和招募不同的贡献者，我们获得了更丰富的见解，增强了编码框架。该方法的复杂性和性质可能使确定公共贡献者可以在哪些方面对研究产生真正的影响变得具有挑战性。我们的经验表明，这种参与是可能的，并产生互利，包括更好地反映人口多样性的研究。本文概述了在系统评审过程中让公众贡献者参与的步骤。主要建议包括投入时间建立关系、提供持续的反馈、纳入创造性活动以及制定向更广泛的受众传播研究成果的战略。这些建议建立在现有指南的基础上，旨在支持研究人员有效地让公共贡献者参与系统评价过程。所有参与疫苗接种项目的公共贡献者都参与了本文的审查。两位公共贡献者P.D.和B.D.也是共同作者，并为本文的写作和审查提供了输入。

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

Health Expectations 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生

CiteScore

5.20

自引率

9.40%

发文量

251

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including: • Person-centred care and quality improvement • Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management • Public perceptions of health services • Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting • Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation • Empowerment and consumerism • Patients'' role in safety and quality • Patient and public role in health services research • Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.