• Emma Leanne Jones, Barbara Ann Williams-Yesson, Rowland C Hackett, Sophie H Staniszewska, David Evans, and Nader Kamal Francis.
• *Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom †Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Higher Kingston, Yeovil, Somerset, United Kingdom ‡Patient representative, Colon Aid PPI Group, Yeovil District Hospital Foundation Trust, Higher Kingston, Yeovil, Somerset, United Kingdom §RCN Research Institute, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom ‖University of the West of England, Glenside, Blackberry Hill, Bristol, United Kingdom.
• Ann. Surg. 2015 Feb 1; 261 (2): 243-50.

BackgroundRecruitment difficulties are a well-reported concern in surgical literature, which may be improved by patient and public involvement (PPI). PPI within research has been defined as being conducted "with" or "by" patients or members of the public rather than being "about" or "for" them. However, the extent to which PPI is used within surgical research is unknown.MethodsSurgical literature was systematically reviewed using EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PubMed. Search terms related to (i) patients, (ii) involvement, (iii) perioperative care, and (iv) impact. Quality of PPI reporting was evaluated using the GRIPP (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and Public checklist and the guidelines developed by Wright and Foster. A patient representative advised on the purpose and analysis of this systematic review.ResultsEight articles described PPI in surgical trials to improve the identification of research topics, study design, recruitment, retention, and data collection. Quality of PPI reporting was suboptimal, as none of the articles provided a clear account of how PPI was conceptualized. Training and support for patients, their involvement in dissemination, and a critique of the limitations of PPI were not reported. However, it was not clear whether this represents an underutilization of PPI or purely suboptimal reporting in surgery.ConclusionsThere is a paucity of surgical research reporting upon PPI, and the quality of reporting is low. Further research to define appropriate standards for reporting on PPI activities may facilitate broadening the utilization and impact of PPI in surgical research.

11 keywords...

hide…