Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

The GRIPP checklist: Strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research

  • Sophie Staniszewska (a1), Jo Brett (a1), Carole Mockford (a1) and Rosemary Barber (a2)

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to develop the GRIPP (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and Public) checklist to enhance the quality of PPI reporting.

Methods: Thematic analysis was used to synthesize key issues relating to patient and public involvement (PPI) identified in the PIRICOM and PAPIRIS systematic reviews. These issues informed the development of the GRIPP checklist.

Results: The key issues identified included limited conceptualization of PPI, poor quality of methods reporting, unclear content validity of studies, poor reporting of context and process, enormous variability in the way impact is reported, little formal evaluation of the quality of involvement, limited focus on negative impacts, and little robust measurement of impact. The GRIPP checklist addresses these key issues.

Conclusion: The reporting of patient and public involvement in health research needs significant enhancement. The GRIPP checklist represents the first international attempt to enhance the quality of PPI reporting. Better reporting will strengthen the PPI evidence-base and so enable more effective evaluation of what PPI works, for whom, in what circumstances and why.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      The GRIPP checklist: Strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      The GRIPP checklist: Strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      The GRIPP checklist: Strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

References

Hide All
1. Abma, T. Patient participation in health research: Research with and for people with spinal cord injuries. Qual Health Res. 2005;15:13101328.
2. Begg, C, Cho, M, Eastwood, S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996;276:637639.
3. Boote, J, Telford, R, Cooper, C. Consumer involvement in health research: A review and research agenda. Health Policy. 2002;61:213236.
4. Brett, J, Staniszewska, S, Mockford, C et al. , The PIRICOM Study: A systematic review of the conceptualisation, measurement, impact and outcomes of patient and public involvement in health and social care research. London: United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration; 2009.
5. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York: CRD, University of York; 2009.
6. Coupland, H, Maher, L, Enriquez, J, et al. Clients or colleagues? Reflections on the process of participatory action research with young injecting drug users. Int J Drug Policy. 2005;16:191198.
7. EQUATOR Network. https://www.equator-network.org/home/ (accessed Feb 11, 2011).
8. Facey, K, Boivin, A, Gracia, J, Hansen, HP, Lo Scalzo, A, et al. Patients’ perspectives in health technology assessment: A route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:334340.
9. Gagnon, M, Desmartis, M, Lepage-Savary, D, et al. Introducing patients’ and the public's perspectives to health technology assessment: A systematic review of international experiences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:3142.
10. Gauvin, F, Abelson, J, Giacomini, M, et al. Moving cautiously: Public involvement and the health technology assessment community. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:4349.
11. Health Canada [WWW document]. URL http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/serviceuser-consult/res-centre/poli-eng.php (accessed February 2011).
12. INVOLVE. http://www.invo.org.uk/. (accessed July 27, 2010).
13. Makela, M, Stein, K. Mind sharpeners for scientists. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:99100.
14. McKenzie, A, Hanley, B. Consumer and community participation in health and medical research. Perth, Western Australia: University of Western Australia; 2007.
15. Mockford, C, Staniszewska, S, Griffiths, F et al. The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS healthcare. International Journal of Quality in Healthcare. In press.
16. Moher, D, Hopewell, S, Schultz, K. Consort 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c723.
17. Moher, D, Schulz, KF, Altman, DG. The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet. 2001;357:11911194.
18. National Institutes of Health [WWW document]. URL http://copr.nih.gov/ (accessed April 1, 2011).
20. Shea, B, Santesso, N, Qualman, A, et al. Cochrane Musculoskeletal Consumer Group. Consumer-driven health care: Building partnerships in research. Health Expect. 2005;8/4:352359.
21. Staley, K. Exploring impact: Public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2009.
22. Staniszewska, S, et al. Developing the evidence base of patient and public involvement in health and social care research: The case for measuring impact. Int J Consum Stud. 2011. in press.
23. Streiner, DL, Norman, GR. Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications; 2005.
24. The National Health and Medical Research Council. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/service (accessed April 1, 2011).
25. Ware, JE, Sherbourne, CD. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36®): I. conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473483.
26. Wright, D, Foster, C, Amir, Z, Elliott, J, Wilson, R. Critical appraisal guidelines for assessing the quality and impact of user involvement in research. Health Expect. 2010;13:359368.

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed