Signe Nissen, Anne Wettergren Karlsson, Birgitte Nørgaard
{"title":"健康研究中患者和公众参与（PPI）的评估工具：范围综述。","authors":"Signe Nissen, Anne Wettergren Karlsson, Birgitte Nørgaard","doi":"10.1007/s40271-025-00765-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient and public involvement (PPI) is crucial for aligning research with public needs, reducing research waste, and enhancing the relevance and quality of evidence. Evaluating PPI is necessary to ensure its effectiveness. However, despite its recognised importance, researchers have reported a lack of robust tools for evaluating PPI systematically. To clarify which tools are used to evaluate PPI in health research, we conducted a scoping review.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to identify and map evaluation tools that have been used in empirical health research studies to assess PPI, and to describe reported outcomes related to PPI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. A comprehensive search was undertaken in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus to identify studies published between 2021 and 2024 describing evaluation tools for PPI in health research contexts. Studies evaluating PPI were included, irrespectively of tool validation. Study selection and data charting were guided by principles from structured extraction frameworks and results were synthesised descriptively and narratively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty studies were included. Positive personal outcomes for PPI partners were reported, including increased well-being and skill development. Despite the existence of robust validated evaluation tools, many were adapted or developed de novo. An 'us vs them' dynamic was noted, reflecting differing engagement levels between PPI partners and researchers during evaluations. The need for additional training for both PPI partners and researchers to enhance collaboration was a recurring theme.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patient and public involvement evaluation tools are often developed or adapted to fit specific contexts, with multiple methods used for assessment. Challenges include low researcher response rates in evaluations and the need for better researcher preparedness for PPI.</p>","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation Tools for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Health Research: A Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"Signe Nissen, Anne Wettergren Karlsson, Birgitte Nørgaard\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40271-025-00765-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient and public involvement (PPI) is crucial for aligning research with public needs, reducing research waste, and enhancing the relevance and quality of evidence. Evaluating PPI is necessary to ensure its effectiveness. However, despite its recognised importance, researchers have reported a lack of robust tools for evaluating PPI systematically. To clarify which tools are used to evaluate PPI in health research, we conducted a scoping review.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to identify and map evaluation tools that have been used in empirical health research studies to assess PPI, and to describe reported outcomes related to PPI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. A comprehensive search was undertaken in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus to identify studies published between 2021 and 2024 describing evaluation tools for PPI in health research contexts. Studies evaluating PPI were included, irrespectively of tool validation. Study selection and data charting were guided by principles from structured extraction frameworks and results were synthesised descriptively and narratively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty studies were included. Positive personal outcomes for PPI partners were reported, including increased well-being and skill development. Despite the existence of robust validated evaluation tools, many were adapted or developed de novo. An 'us vs them' dynamic was noted, reflecting differing engagement levels between PPI partners and researchers during evaluations. The need for additional training for both PPI partners and researchers to enhance collaboration was a recurring theme.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patient and public involvement evaluation tools are often developed or adapted to fit specific contexts, with multiple methods used for assessment. Challenges include low researcher response rates in evaluations and the need for better researcher preparedness for PPI.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51271,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-025-00765-3\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-025-00765-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluation Tools for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Health Research: A Scoping Review.
Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is crucial for aligning research with public needs, reducing research waste, and enhancing the relevance and quality of evidence. Evaluating PPI is necessary to ensure its effectiveness. However, despite its recognised importance, researchers have reported a lack of robust tools for evaluating PPI systematically. To clarify which tools are used to evaluate PPI in health research, we conducted a scoping review.
Objective: We aimed to identify and map evaluation tools that have been used in empirical health research studies to assess PPI, and to describe reported outcomes related to PPI.
Methods: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. A comprehensive search was undertaken in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus to identify studies published between 2021 and 2024 describing evaluation tools for PPI in health research contexts. Studies evaluating PPI were included, irrespectively of tool validation. Study selection and data charting were guided by principles from structured extraction frameworks and results were synthesised descriptively and narratively.
Results: Thirty studies were included. Positive personal outcomes for PPI partners were reported, including increased well-being and skill development. Despite the existence of robust validated evaluation tools, many were adapted or developed de novo. An 'us vs them' dynamic was noted, reflecting differing engagement levels between PPI partners and researchers during evaluations. The need for additional training for both PPI partners and researchers to enhance collaboration was a recurring theme.
Conclusions: Patient and public involvement evaluation tools are often developed or adapted to fit specific contexts, with multiple methods used for assessment. Challenges include low researcher response rates in evaluations and the need for better researcher preparedness for PPI.
期刊介绍：
The Patient provides a venue for scientifically rigorous, timely, and relevant research to promote the development, evaluation and implementation of therapies, technologies, and innovations that will enhance the patient experience. It is an international forum for research that advances and/or applies qualitative or quantitative methods to promote the generation, synthesis, or interpretation of evidence.
The journal has specific interest in receiving original research, reviews and commentaries related to qualitative and mixed methods research, stated-preference methods, patient reported outcomes, and shared decision making.
Advances in regulatory science, patient-focused drug development, patient-centered benefit-risk and health technology assessment will also be considered.
Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in The Patient may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.
All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
