GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research

BackgroundWhile the patient and public involvement (PPI) evidence base has expanded over the past decade, the quality of reporting within papers is often inconsistent, limiting our understanding of how it works, in what context, for whom, and why.ObjectiveTo develop international consensus on the key items to report to enhance the quality, transparency, and consistency of the PPI evidence base. To collaboratively involve patients as research partners at all stages in the development of GRIPP2.MethodsThe EQUATOR method for developing reporting guidelines was used. The original GRIPP (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public) checklist was revised, based on updated systematic review evidence. A three round Delphi survey was used to develop consensus on items to be included in the guideline. A subsequent face-to-face meeting produced agreement on items not reaching consensus during the Delphi process.ResultsOne hundred forty-three participants agreed to participate in round one, with an 86% (123/143) response for round two and a 78% (112/143) response for round three. The Delphi survey identified the need for long form (LF) and short form (SF) versions. GRIPP2-LF includes 34 items on aims, definitions, concepts and theory, methods, stages and nature of involvement, context, capture or measurement of impact, outcomes, economic assessment, and reflections and is suitable for studies where the main focus is PPI. GRIPP2-SF includes five items on aims, methods, results, outcomes, and critical perspective and is suitable for studies where PPI is a secondary focus.ConclusionsGRIPP2-LF and GRIPP2-SF represent the first international evidence based, consensus informed guidance for reporting patient and public involvement in research. Both versions of GRIPP2 aim to improve the quality, transparency, and consistency of the international PPI evidence base, to ensure PPI practice is based on the best evidence. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on The BMJ and Research Involvement and Engagement journal websites.

[1]  V. Braun,et al.  Using thematic analysis in psychology , 2006 .

[2]  John Gribbin,et al.  One small step , 1974, Nature.

[3]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA)— An Extension of the STROBE Statement , 2009, PLoS medicine.

[4]  D. Moher,et al.  CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[5]  V. Montori,et al.  Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework , 2015, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[6]  Frances Griffiths,et al.  The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: a systematic review. , 2012, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[7]  J. Sloan,et al.  Patient engagement in research: a systematic review , 2014, BMC Health Services Research.

[8]  E. Mohammadi,et al.  Barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of a physiological track and trigger system: A systematic review of the qualitative evidence , 2017, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[9]  S. Staniszewska,et al.  Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review , 2014, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[10]  D. Moher,et al.  Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines , 2010, PLoS medicine.

[11]  Rosemary Barber,et al.  The GRIPP checklist: Strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research , 2011, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[12]  D. Moher.  Guidelines for reporting health care research: advancing the clarity and transparency of scientific reporting , 2009, Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie.

[13]  Iveta Simera,et al.  Reaching consensus on reporting patient and public involvement (PPI) in research: methods and lessons learned from the development of reporting guidelines , 2017, BMJ Open.

[14]  M. Gagnon,et al.  Introducing patients' and the public's perspectives to health technology assessment: A systematic review of international experiences , 2011, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[15]  Kuhn Thomas,et al.  Thomas S. KUHN, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 50th anniversary , 2013 .

[16]  C. Goodman,et al.  ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study , 2015 .

[17]  Colin Tysall,et al.  A Systematic Review of the Impact of Patient and Public Involvement on Service Users, Researchers and Communities , 2014, The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.

[18]  S. Tarrow,et al.  Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action and Politics , 1994 .

[19]  David Moher,et al.  Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. , 2003, Clinical chemistry.

[20]  David Moher,et al.  Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. , 2004, Family practice.

[21]  D. Moher,et al.  CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[22]  D. Moher.  Reporting research results: A moral obligation for all researchers , 2007, Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie.