Skip to main content
Download PDF

A review of reviews exploring patient and public involvement in population health research and development of tools containing best practice guidance

BMC Public Health volume 23, Article number: 1271 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly seen as something that is integral to research and of importance to research funders. There is general recognition that PPI is the right thing to do for both moral and practical reasons. The aim of this review of reviews is to examine how PPI can be done ‘properly’ by looking at the evidence that exists from published reviews and assessing it against the UK Standards for Public Involvement in Research, as well as examining the specific features of population health research that can make PPI more challenging.

Methods

A review of reviews and development of best practice guidance was carried out following the 5-stage Framework Synthesis method.

Results

In total 31 reviews were included. There is a lack of current research or clarity around Governance and Impact when findings are mapped against UK Standards for Public Involvement in Research. It was also clear that there is little knowledge around PPI with under-represented groups. There are gaps in knowledge about how to ensure key specific attributes of population health research are addressed for PPI team members – particularly around how to deal with complexity and the data-driven nature of the research. Four tools were produced for researchers and PPI members to further improve their PPI activity within population health research and health research more generally, including a framework of recommended actions to address PPI in population health research, and guidance on integrating PPI based on the UK Standards for Public Involvement in Research.

Conclusions

Facilitating PPI in population health research is challenging due to the nature of this type of research and there is far less evidence on how to do PPI well in this context. The tools can help researchers identify key aspects of PPI that can be integrated when designing PPI within projects. Findings also highlight specific areas where more research or discussion is needed.

Peer Review reports

Background

The focus of this review of reviews is on Public and Patient involvement (PPI) in population health research and the subsequent development of best practice guidance to further improve PPI practice. PPI is increasingly seen as something that is integral to research and of importance to research funders. For our purposes, PPI is defined as ‘research that is developed with the public’. Specifically, patients or members of the public with relevant lived experience can be involved at any stage of the research project, including the research design, delivery and dissemination. When done well, PPI is fundamental to protect and promote the interests of patients and the public, and it also helps to create research that is more relevant with clearer outcomes and impact [1]. More practical benefits of including PPI in research are reduced waste and improved quality [2]. High quality impactful research addressing population health issues with planned and integrated PPI is needed now more than ever given the recent global Covid 19 pandemic where research was commonly conducted in isolation of PPI, and the public lacked trust in some of the evidence produced (such as compulsory stay at home orders and mask wearing) [3].

Defining when PPI is done well and has been effective has also been challenging for researchers to articulate. Research funders commonly set out expectations for including PPI in research studies but there is less acknowledgement as to what is sufficient PPI, what ‘good’ PPI looks like and what impact PPI has had on the research outcomes. In the UK, six standards [4] have been published as to what ‘good PPI’ looks like in relation to quality and consistency of involvement (see methods section for further details). Researchers are also increasingly reporting the outcomes of PPI on their research as well as the outcomes of the study [5, 6].

It is important to highlight that public involvement is not the same as taking part in a study as a research participant. Public involvement is not the same as public engagement. The latter refers to the process of engagement to obtain feedback and sharing research findings with the public [1]. There is however sometimes confusion between what constitutes public engagement compared with involvement. In some countries, such as Canada, it is also common to use ‘public engagement’ to refer to public involvement [7]. Similarly, the lines between stakeholder representation and public or patient representation can sometimes be blurred.

Population health research

‘Population health’ is associated with several definitions and nuances and there is overlap with public health and aspects of more general health research. The King’s Fund defined population health as: Research that is designed with the aim to benefit the health of a population. It focuses on improving outcomes such as physical and mental health and wellbeing of a determined population while reducing health inequalities. It can include the goals of reducing illnesses or/and delivering health and care services. Population health focuses on the wider determinants of health and it can involve communities and partner agencies [8].

‘Public health’, by comparison, can be defined as: Activities to strengthen public health capacities and service aims to provide conditions under which people can maintain their health, improve their health and wellbeing, or prevent the deterioration of their health. Public health focuses on the entire spectrum of health and wellbeing, not only the eradication of particular diseases [9].

Some refer to Public Health (note the capitalisation) as specifically about activities and interventions carried out by government agencies, health professionals, or other centralised bodies whereas population health includes other, non-health related, influences such as housing, transport and education. In reality, these various definitions can oversimplify our understanding and a rigid adherence to a perceived difference between the terms may serve to disguise relevant information about successful PPI activity. For Diez-Roux, what really matters are the answers and actions arising from the questions raised regarding the health of the public, and everything else is a semantic discussion [10].

Specific challenges of integrating PPI in population health research

Population health research, or health research that considers population level questions, provides challenges in terms of PPI that are not always present in condition-specific research projects. For example:

  • Duration. Population health research often looks at health variables across a long period of time. This makes recruiting and retaining suitable PPI representation across the length of the project more challenging. Changes in personnel, in all parts of the research team and partners, can be expected in any project.

  • Complexity. Population health is often multi-disciplinary and looks at health as the product of multiple determinants (such as biology, genetics, behaviours, social and environmental aspects) as well as looking at their interactions among individuals and groups and across time and generations. With all these different variants involved it can be difficult for a lay person to understand the complexity – or, to put it another way, for the researchers to explain the research in a way that a lay person can understand. It may often be the case that a different skill set, and therefore potentially a different person, is necessary at different stages of the research or for different workstreams – something that applies to researchers as well as to PPI representatives.

  • Data-driven. Population health projects are often driven by large datasets and can involve knowledge of algorithms, advanced statistics, and analytical techniques that can be unfriendly to the non-mathematically minded. It can be a challenge for researchers to ‘translate’ both the process and the outcomes of their research in terms that can be more widely understood. This is one reason why PPI can be so helpful in such projects. For example, helping to design dissemination activity that is meaningful to a broad audience.

  • Representation. Population health research often addresses large and diverse population groups within the populations being researched, which raises issues about the PPI being representative. Even within disease-specific studies it is often difficult, if not practically impossible, to recruit someone who truly represents the breadth of people with a certain condition. Once that issue is expanded out to wider populations, the issue of true representation is multiplied many times. Representation becomes particularly difficult with certain demographic groups which may be grouped together for convenience, but which might hide a variety of differences. A prime example of this is the involvement of ethnic minority communities – recruiting a single person of ethnic minority background risks subsuming important differences according to specific cultural, genetic, class, education and other factors. There is also an ongoing debate about terminology such as ‘hard to reach’, ‘under-represented’, ‘seldom heard’ and ‘under-served’ which often have problematic resonances (11). The definition of ‘under-served’ is highly context-specific; it will depend on the population, the condition under study, the question being asked by research teams, and the intervention being tested. No single, simple definition can encompass all under-served groups (12).

The need for a review of reviews and new guidance

As described above, population health presents specific challenges for researchers and there is a lack of guidance on doing PPI well in population health research. Scoping searches identified a number of reviews of PPI involvement covering population health, public health as well as other more general reviews that included population and public health studies of interest. None of the published reviews had a specific focus on what worked to deliver optimal PPI in population health research. As core researchers with the National Centre for Population Health and Wellbeing Research in Wales (NCPHWR) (https://ncphwr.org.uk/), we were tasked with developing guidance to fill this identified gap. We therefore decided to undertake a review of reviews to explore the challenges and solutions to carrying out PPI well in population health research and to produce guidance to support further development of PPI practice in this field. Four tools reporting best practice guidance and highlighting key resources were subsequently developed to further improve the quality of PPI activities in population health research.

Materials and methods

This review of reviews assembled and interpreted the evidence on PPI involvement in population health research. Question formulation was underpinned by the ECLIPSE (Expectation, Client Group, Location, Professionals and Service) framework that is acknowledged to be most suitable for searching for health policy or health management information [13].

We developed the following question: What evidence exists concerning the successful development, implementation and evaluation of patient and public involvement activity or models in population health research in the UK and equivalent health systems?

Inclusion criteria

  • Type of study: systematic and other reviews that focus on the concept of, or approaches to, PPI and/or PPE (patient and public engagement) across population health, public health, health and social care. Limited to systematic reviews, narrative reviews, literature reviews, bibliometric reviews, scoping reviews and meta-analyses. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods reviews were of interest.

  • Setting: any organisational setting that includes population health, public health, health or social care aspects (e.g., primary care, mental health, hospital, tertiary care, voluntary, etc.).

  • Type of involvement: not just being part of the research as a participant but being involved in part or all of the following stages – research development, research monitoring, research analysis and dissemination.

Exclusion criteria

  • Articles not in English.

  • Reviews published before 2010. However, the timeframes for the primary studies included in the reviews varied and could go back to the inception of various databases. This timeframe was considered appropriate as public and patient involvement is something that has been developing rapidly in recent years and was not really established as a well-recognised term before then.

Search Strategy

An information scientist undertook the initial search of the Medline and PubMed databases. The full search strategy is included in supplementary file 1. The Involve Evidence Library was searched for ‘systematic reviews’. Note that this library only includes references up to 2015. The original search was done in May 2020 with a follow up search (stages 2 and 3) carried out early in September 2021 to pick up new reviews up to end of August 2021.

Screening

Titles and abstracts were screened to identify reviews that met the inclusion criteria. Potentially relevant reviews were retrieved and the full text assessed for inclusion (Fig. 1). The process was undertaken by SV and independently checked by JN.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA Flow Diagram. * This number is incomplete due to missing information on some papers. Duplicates have been removed (original n = 1222)

Full size image

Quality appraisal

Originally the AMSTAR2 [14], method was trialled on six reviews but as most of the included reviews were qualitative rather than quantitative many of the AMSTAR2 domains did not apply so we switched to using CASP for systematic reviews [15]. Included reviews were quality appraised by SV and independently checked by JN (see supplementary file 2 for results of quality assessments). Reviews were not excluded at this stage on methodological grounds as the focus was on PPI processes reported in the review.

Data extraction and synthesis

Studies included in source reviews were mapped for duplication and this was taken account of in the analysis and synthesis. As this review of reviews did not require a transformative method of data synthesis to better understand the descriptive accounts of PPI in the source reviews, we selected the aggregative 5-stage Framework synthesis method for integrating evidence of interest from diverse review designs and to identify examples of best practice.

It is a matrix-based method involving the construction of a priori thematic categories into which data can be coded [16]. The five stages are:

  • Familiarisation.

  • Identifying a thematic framework.

  • Indexing.

  • Charting.

  • Mapping and interpretation.

Initial data extraction was carried out against a framework designed by the authors based on close examination of background literature, initial review readings and a desire to identify best practice. (Table 1).

Table 1 Initial framework: headings and details
Full size table

Extracted data were subsequently mapped against a second framework (Table 2) and matched against the UK Standards for Public Involvement to identify examples of solutions to problems and best practice [4].

Table 2 Secondary framework: thematic mapping
Full size table

The UK Standards for Public Involvement are:

  • Inclusive Opportunities - Offer public involvement opportunities that are accessible and that reach people and groups according to research needs.

  • Working Together - Work together in a way that values all contributions, and that builds and sustains mutually respectful and productive relationships.

  • Support and Learning - Offer and promote support and learning that builds confidence and skills for public involvement in research.

  • Governance - Involve the public in research management, regulation, leadership and decision making.

  • Communications - Use plain language for well-timed and relevant communications, as part of involvement plans and activities.

  • Impact - Seek improvement by identifying and sharing the difference that public involvement makes to research [4].

Development of tools containing best practice guidance

Selected tables developed to display examples of best practice mapped against the UK standards for PPI as part of the mapping and charting of the Framework synthesis easily translated with minor editing into tools outlining best practice principles for researchers and PPI (Supplemental file 4). These resources were shared with members of the NCPHWR and PPI members for feedback.

Public and patient involvement

This review of reviews included PPI input, specifically, the draft review was read and commented on several times throughout its development by two PPI members from the Centre for Population Health Patient and Public Involvement Advisory Group. This PPI group meets quarterly to help set the strategic direction for PPI within the Centre.

Results

Thirty-one reviews were included covering around one thousand individual studies, which were mainly based in the UK or USA. We took note of any duplication of studies across reviews to ensure that we were not double counting the evidence.

The studies covered a range of settings and subject areas (see supplementary file 3 for a description of all included studies). Reviews varied in quality (see supplementary file 2 for results of quality assessments) but as the review methods and findings were not the primary phenomenon of interest, we did not place a lot of emphasis on the quality of the source reviews when interpreting findings.

Specifically, the reviews covered, to varying degrees, three out of the four challenges, outlined earlier, that set population health research apart from many other research types.

Representation was extensively discussed in the studies reviewed. It is an aspect of PPI that does not have a simple solution for any type of research project. For population health projects that tend to be longer in duration, it may be that different people need to take part in different periods of the project and, for complex projects, that different people need to be involved in different work streams. Boote [17] noted a concern that PPI representatives taking part in research over time may become ‘professionalised’ and come to see things from the point of view of the research team rather than as a member of the public or patient demographic.

Complexity was also discussed when talking about support and learning requirements for PPI members. Population health projects are often highly complex but, given the right support and training, that is not a sufficient reason to exclude PPI activity.

The data-driven aspect was touched upon mainly in terms of ensuring that project specific training and support was available. Many population health projects include aspects of Big Data which can add a layer of difficulty to PPI activity, but which can also be addressed by considering tailored training and support. Having non-data experts involved in such projects may help when designing dissemination and communication activities around the project so that they can eventually be more accessible to a wider audience.

Duration was the only aspect that was not specifically discussed in the reviews and in finding solutions. It is possible to postulate that building relationships and strong ways of working together may help to address this issue. But also, that acknowledging upfront the changing requirements of a long-term project will help researchers to plan accordingly – including planning for long term PPI.

Common issues across PPI activity in population and other types of health research

There are several aspects of PPI activity that are common across various types of health research, including, but not exclusive to, population health research.

Challenges

Just over half of the reviews (18 out of 31 [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35]) noted a range of potential challenges with PPI that were reported to stand in the way of the successful development, implementation and evaluation of patient and public involvement activity or models in health research in the UK and equivalent health systems.

Consolidation of the challenges reported in the reviews suggested that the following (Table 3) were the key issues. These have been grouped into appropriate headings.

Table 3 Full list of challenges identified
Full size table

Many of these challenges will be even more apparent in population health research where projects tend to face the four challenges of: longer duration, involving more complex and varied processes, alongside issues of big data, and finding appropriate representation to cover the project breadth and length.

Solutions

Nearly three quarters of the studies (23 out of 31) [7, 20,21,22, 24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42] noted a range of potential solutions for ensuring that PPI was more likely to be successful.

These proposed solutions have been collated, consolidated and sorted according to the UK Standards for Involvement in Research as follows:

Inclusive Opportunities

Solution: Offer public involvement opportunities that are accessible and that reach people and groups according to research needs. Research also needs to be informed by a diversity of public experience and insight, so that it leads to treatments and services which reflect these needs.

Eleven reviews mentioned inclusion (21–[22, 24]–[25, 28, 34, 37]–38, 40,41,42). Key themes are outlined in Table 4 below and explicitly address the problem area of Representation.

Table 4 Solutions – Inclusive opportunities
Full size table

Working together

Solution: Work together in a way that values all contributions, and that builds and sustains mutually respectful and productive relationships. Public involvement in research is better when people work together towards a common purpose, and different perspectives are respected.

Twenty-one reviews (7, 20,21,22, 24–25, 27,28,29,30,31,32,33, 35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43) discussed aspects of this standard. The main areas of discussion are outlined in Table 5 below and explicitly address the problem area of Conflict and Control.

Table 5 Solutions – Working Together
Full size table

Support and learning

Solution: Offer and promote support and learning that builds confidence and skills for public involvement in research. Seek to remove practical and social barriers that stop members of the public and research professionals from making the most of public involvement in research.

Seventeen reviews mentioned various aspects of support and learning [7, 20, 22, 25–26, 28–29, 31,32,33, 36,37,38,39,40,41,42]. The findings are shown in Table 6 below, which is split into two sections to reflect differences between support and learning methods, and explicitly addresses the problem area of Knowledge.

Table 6 Solutions – Support and learning
Full size table

Governance

Solution: Involve the public in research management, regulation, leadership and decision making.

Public involvement in research governance can help research be more transparent and gain public trust. This section explicitly addresses the problem area of Conflict and Control. Only three of the reviews mentioned governance [7, 28, 39]. They discuss the need for shared decision-making (at every level), power and leadership, in order to lead to a culture of deeper involvement. As limited suggestions were reported there is no table for this section.

Communications

Solution: Use plain language for well-timed and relevant communications, as part of involvement plans and activities. Communicate with a wider audience about public involvement and research, using a broad range of approaches that are accessible and appealing.

Nine of the reviews discussed communication as being important to ensure PPI activity is successful [7, 28–29, 31, 36, 38–39, 42]. Various attributes of good communication were discussed with the main points listed in Table 7 below, and explicitly addresses the problem area of Communications.

Table 7 Solutions - Communications
Full size table

Impact

Solution: Seek improvement by identifying and sharing the difference that public involvement makes to research. Understand the changes, benefits and learning gained from the insights and experiences of patients, carers and the public.

Seven of the reviews discussed impact [7, 24, 28, 36, 38–39, 42–43]. The general theme was that impact needs to be better evaluated throughout the whole research lifecycle. It was noted that this is an area where the existing literature is scant and current working practices are perceived to be lacking in terms of rigour. Most studies focused on the impact of PPI activity on participants, researchers or the research itself – rather than setting out to formally assess what works to make PPI activity successful. Moreover, there is much still to be decided about what impact may be reasonably expected to be seen. Brett et al. [44] noted particularly the lack of any evidence of any financial analysis and Jones et al. [45] suggested that the use of contemporaneous real time data concerning PPI within surgical trials, currently lacking, could be made use of. Furthermore, it is not always possible to predict the impact of the involvement, as we are not always able to determine or anticipate potential problems or issues raised by PPI as the study progresses. One important contextual factor consistent throughout the research development is the researcher themselves, their previous experiences, skills, knowledge and beliefs. The researcher experiences the impact of PPI as the research develops [46].

Evaluating impact through continuous assessment and feedback was seen to be important in order to ensure ongoing involvement, to identify best practice and areas for improvement, and to make sure that the experience is working for everyone involved. In addition to evaluating the process of PPI within health research, it was also noted that the impact of findings that are translated to real world settings, and ideally the contribution of PPI activity to that impact, should also be evaluated.

It is important to note that impact can be positive or negative and that impact may happen in a complex way and to a range of areas, for example, impact on the research, on the research outcomes, on the researchers, on the PPI members, on the wider community and stakeholders.

Other issues

Interestingly considering the topic of the reviews, the use of PPI members in the reviews was not universal.

  • 9 reviews described PPI throughout the review process;

  • 3 reviews took their findings to PPI members for discussion;

  • 3 reviews made use of external panels or organisations;

  • Single reviews reported utilising PPI at specific stages:

    • To identify research questions;

    • Reviewing protocol;

    • During execution and translation;

    • Reviewing the process;

    • Feedback from stakeholder but stage not stated;

  • 2 reviews mentioned that there had not been any PPI in the review;

  • 9 reviews did not mention PPI in their own review process at all.

Few of the reviews detailed the studies discussed within them in terms of types of PPI or in terms of stages of research although most included some discussion of these areas in general terms. Dawson et al. [47] is one exception where the studies are clearly detailed in terms of what PPI groups or individuals were involved in various tasks.

There was no consistent terminology used for either types of PPI or stages of research. There has been some attempt to categorise these at a national level. For example, in the UK, INVOLVE distinguished between three PPI approaches: consultation, collaboration and user-led; while Health Canada divides PPI into five stages: inform or educate, gather information, discuss, engage and partner (Pii)[22].

Crocker et al. [48] describes the types of involvement covered in the studies to range ‘from one person to many people or whole patient organisations, from one-off involvement in a particular aspect of the trial (for example, reviewing draft information for patients or recruiting participants from their communities) to involvement throughout the trial (for example, as members of a trial steering committee), and from involvement with no decision making power (for example, as advisers) to involvement in decision making as equal partners’. Some examples of the stages of research where PPI was included are summarised in Table 8.

Table 8 Examples of stages of research where PPI was included
Full size table

Discussion

This review of reviews set out to see what evidence there was concerning optimising patient and public involvement specific to population health research. The novelty in this review of reviews is twofold: firstly, that the findings have been framed by the UK Standards and secondly, that the challenges have been matched against potential solutions. The UK Standards were used to map evidence of successful development, implementation and evaluation of patient and public involvement and then translated into tools containing best practice guidance to further drive-up standards in the conduct of PPI in population health research (see supplementary file 4 for new guidance and tools for use in population health research).

Most reviews were about PPI activity in specific thematic healthcare areas or in general health and social care research but the details of the studies included in the reviews makes it clear that many studies included were of direct relevance to population health research. The findings are, therefore, both generic across health and social care research as well as providing useful evidence-based suggestions as to what works in PPI in population health research.

Comparing findings with recently published primary studies

Looking at recently published primary studies we found several of interest, mainly around data-driven population health research. The principles that emerge from these studies fit well with the findings of the review of reviews, but also suggest that there are a variety of approaches through which PPI can be addressed and improved. We summarise recent primary studies in Table 9.

Table 9 Recent population health primary studies addressing PPI.
Full size table

The specific aspect of longer-term duration that is often typical of population health studies is best illustrated through the examination of existing longitudinal studies as case studies. Longitudinal studies involve repeated observations of the same subjects, allowing researchers to analyse change at the individual level. Such studies typically last decades, such as the 1970 British Cohort Study [54] or the Medical Research Council National Survey of Health and Development [55] which started in 1946.

Considering involvement in longitudinal studies, one approach is that used by the ALSPAC study could be considered an exemplar of best practice [56]. Based at the University of Bristol, the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC), also known as Children of the 90s, is a world-leading birth cohort study. One of the governance aspects of the study is the original cohort advisory panel (OCAP) which is made up of more than 30 study participants who meet bi-monthly to provide insights and advice on study design, methodology and acceptability for participants. The group has been running since 2006.

The main aims of the OCAP group are:

  • To represent the cohort of original study children;

  • To review study documentation and provide feedback to CO90s staff;

  • To represent and convey participants’ opinions about planned research exercises.

Taken collectively, these supplementary sources suggest that certain solutions identified in the reviews, such as good communication and tailored training, are even more vital to PPI in population health research. One thing that emerges strongly from these studies is the idea that PPI selection and recruitment for population health research projects needs to be very carefully considered.

Fit of the UK Standards

The UK Standards proved to be a coherent framework for capturing solutions and no solution was offered that did not fit in to one of the six categories. It was, however, notable that two standards were less discussed than others: Governance and Impact. Capturing, measuring and illustrating the impact of PPI within the entire lifespan of a project is an issue that has not yet been resolved but is currently being addressed by various organisations. The absence of Governance may be a result of language use, as some attributes of Working Together were relevant in terms of this standard but were not couched in terms of Governance specifically. It was also interesting to see that Communications is a UK Standard separate from Working Together, as it was something that could be seen to be an integral part of Working Together. One further point of consideration is that it could be considered that the aspirational end point of PPI would be that any involvement would become so integral to the project that it would be difficult to unpick whose contribution had led to an impact or outcome not originally anticipated.

In addition, peer reviewer feedback on this manuscript highlighted the notion of ‘representation’ or ‘representativeness’ as a very contentious subject in the context of public involvement in population health research. The UK standards refer to offering opportunities to people and groups depending on research needs but does not mention engaging with whole communities as would be expected in a population health research context. There was a strong view expressed by one peer reviewer that ‘no one else is expected to be representative of a community in a research team so why should we expect this of our public contributors? I actually think public/population health research provides an excellent opportunity to move away from this by placing a greater emphasis on working with and co-producing with communities as opposed to individuals.’ We agree with this view and support the type of PPI engagement advocated by the peer reviewer for population health research.

Strengths and limitations of the review of reviews

The review of reviews was carried out using systematic processes and following production of an a priori protocol. Not all data were however complete for all reviews and there was a wide variety within the reviews that did report data. For example,

  • The number of studies reported in each review varied from 4 [41] to 251 [39];

  • Years searched ranged from time periods defined by the previous decade [22] to those that searched back to the inception of the databases searched [30];

  • Geography also varied but, of those reviews which gave details of geographical settings, the vast majority of the studies were from the UK (n = 292), followed by the USA (n = 95) and then other areas: Canada (n = 38), Europe (n = 29), Australia (n = 25), and other countries or multiple site studies (n = 17).

The reviews covered a range of diagnostic areas ranging from generic health and social care [18] or clinical trials [47] to condition specific areas such as diabetes [37] or palliative care [21]. Although a broad range of conditions were covered, this review did not focus on condition-specific aspects which could act as challenges for involvement. However, this was not within the remit of this review which had a greater focus on PPI in population health research. Interestingly there were few reviews based on demographic groups who are generally acknowledged to be under-represented in healthcare decision making:

  • There was one review for ethnic minority communities [19] and the geography of the studies included were mainly in the United States.

  • There was one review for Older People [24] which covered nine qualitative articles. Arguably studies around dementia and palliative care may be relevant to this demographic but that cannot be assumed.

  • There were three reviews for Children and Young People – all of which had a specific focus rather than looking at the involvement of Children and Young People in PPI more generally:

    • Children and Families in Pediatric Health Research [23];

    • Disabled children [25];

    • Paediatric Intensive Care [41].

On the positive side, Malterud et al. [57] however noted the usefulness of ‘two articles which describe in detail how individuals with limited literacy abilities can be supported to analyse and communicate such processes’.

Conclusions

There are several important areas of PPI activity that require further research. With regards to Population Health research, there remain gaps in knowledge about how to ensure key specific attributes of this type of research are addressed for PPI team members – particularly around how to deal with complexity and the data-driven nature of the research. Looking at the UK Standards when mapped against the findings, it is clear that there is a lack of current research or clarity around Governance and Impact. There could also be more research done about PPI with under-represented groups. The new tools containing best practice guidance produced from the synthesis and examples of resources are designed to help population health researchers to facilitate better PPI and in turn to conduct better research.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Notes

  1. When a project outgrows its original remit without any additional resources being available.

Abbreviations

ALSPAC:

Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children

CO90s:

Children of the 90s

CPH:

National Centre for Population Health and Wellbeing Research

HCRW:

Health and Care Research Wales

HE:

Health Economics

HTA:

Health Technology Assessment

IKT:

Integrated knowledge translation

OCAP:

Original Cohort Advisory Panel

PPEET:

Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool

PPE:

Patient and Public Engagement/ Public and Patient Engagement

PPI:

Patient and Public Involvement / Public and Patient Involvement

References

  1. What is public involvement in research? Health Research Authority. 2020 Dec 16 [cited 2021 April 15]. Available from: https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/best-practice/public-involvement/.

  2. Minogue V, Cooke M, Donskoy A-L, Vicary P, Wells B. Patient and public involvement in reducing health and care research waste. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4(1):5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Public involvement in a pandemic. Lessons from the UK Covid-19 public involvement matching service. Health Research Authority. 2021 Nov 26 [cited 2023 April 14]. Available from: https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/best-practice/public-involvement/public-involvement-pandemic-lessons-uk-covid-19-public-involvement-matching-service/.

  4. The UK Standards. : Setting the scene. UK Standards for Public Involvement. [cited 2021 April 09]. Available from: https://sites.google.com/nihr.ac.uk/pi-standards/standards/setting-the-scene.

  5. Mc Laughlin L, Williams G, Roberts G, et al. Assessing the efficacy of coproduction to better understand the barriers to achieving sustainability in NHS chronic kidney services and create alternate pathways. Health Expect. 2022;25(2):579–606. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13391.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Noyes J, Mclaughlin L, Morgan K, et al. Designing a co-productive study to overcome known methodological challenges in organ donation research with bereaved family members. Health Expect. 2019;22(4):824–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12894.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Manafo E, Petermann L, Mason-Lai P, Vandall-Walker V. Patient engagement in Canada: a scoping review of the ‘how’ and ‘what’ of patient engagement in health research. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 Mar 14;16(1):24. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0296-y.

  8. Holmes J. What does improving population health really mean? The King’s Fund. 2022 July 21 [cited 2022 July 21]. Available from: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/what-does-improving-population-health-mean.

  9. WHO. Public Health Services [cited 2021 September 09]. Available from: https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/Health-systems/public-health-services.

  10. Diez-Roux AV. On the distinction—or lack of distinction—between Population Health and Public Health. Am J Public Health 2016 April; 106(4): 619–20. doi: https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303097.

  11. Ali H. I am not ‘hard to reach’. UpRising. 2020 April 9 [cited 2021 November 7]. Available from: https://www.uprising.org.uk/news/i-am-not-hard-reach.

  12. Improving inclusion of under-served groups in clinical research. : Guidance from INCLUDE project. National Institute for Health and Care Research, 2020 August 7 [cited 2021 November 7]. Available from: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/improving-inclusion-of-under-served-groups-in-clinical-research-guidance-from-include-project/25435.

  13. Wildridge V, Bell L. How clip became eclipse: a mnemonic to assist in searching for health policy/management information. Health Inform Libr J. 2002;19(2):113–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. AMSTAR 2 – The new and improved AMSTAR. AMSTAR. 2021 [cited 2021 April 15]. Available from: https://amstar.ca/Amstar-2.php.

  15. CASP Checklists. CASP [cited April 15]. Available from: https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/.

  16. Iliffe S, Wilcock J, Drennan V et al. Changing practice in dementia care in the community: developing and testing evidence-based interventions, from timely diagnosis to end of life (EVIDEM). Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2015 Apr. (Programme Grants for Applied Research, No. 3.3.) Appendix 65, Chap. 5: Five main stages in framework analysis. [cited December 12]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK286110/.

  17. Boote J, Telford R, Cooper C. Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda. Health Policy. 2002 Aug;61(2):213 – 36. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-8510(01)00214-7. PMID: 12088893.

  18. Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J et al. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. Patient. 2014;7(4):387 – 95. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0065-0. PMID: 25034612.

  19. Dawson 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 Feb;21(1):3–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12597. Epub 2017 Aug 15. PMID: 28812330; PMCID: PMC5750731.

  20. Zych MM, Berta WB, Gagliardi AR. Conceptualising the initiation of researcher and research user partnerships: a meta-narrative review. Health Res Policy Sys. 2020;18:24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-0536-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Scholz B, Bevan A, Georgousopoulou E, Collier A, Mitchell I. Consumer and carer leadership in palliative care academia and practice: a systematic review with narrative synthesis. Palliat Med. 2019 Sep;33(8):959–68. Epub 2019 Jun 14. PMID: 31199194.

  22. Pii KH, Schou LH, Piil K, Jarden M. Current trends in patient and public involvement in cancer research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2019 Feb;22(1):3–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12841. Epub 2018 Oct 30. PMID: 30378234; PMCID: PMC6351419.

  23. Flynn R, Walton S, Scott SD. Engaging children and families in pediatric Health Research: a scoping review. Res Involv Engagem. 2019;5:32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-019-0168-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Baldwin JN, Napier S, Neville S, Wright-St Clair VA. Impacts of older people’s patient and public involvement in health and social care research: a systematic review. Age Ageing. 2018 Nov 1;47(6):801–809. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afy092. PMID: 29939208.

  25. Bailey S, Boddy K, Briscoe S, Morris C. Involving disabled children and young people as partners in research: a systematic review. Child Care Health Dev. 2015 Jul;41(4):505 – 14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12197. Epub 2014 Oct 16. PMID: 25323964.

  26. Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, et al. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2014 Oct;17(5):637–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x. Epub 2012 Jul 19. PMID: 22809132; PMCID: PMC5060910.

  27. Wilsher SH, Brainard J, Loke Y, et al. Patient and public involvement in health literacy interventions: a mapping review. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3:31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0081-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Price A, Albarqouni L, Kirkpatrick J, Clarke M, Liew SM, Roberts N, et al. Patient and public involvement in the design of clinical trials: an overview of systematic reviews. J Eval Clin Pract. 2018 Feb;24(1):240–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12805. Epub 2017 Oct 27. PMID: 29076631.

  29. Bethell J, Commisso E, Rostad HM, Puts M, Babineau J, Grinbergs-Saull A et al. Patient engagement in research related to dementia: A scoping review. Dementia (London). 2018 Nov;17(8):944–975. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301218789292. PMID: 30373460.

  30. Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:89. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-89.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Boote J, Baird W, Beecroft C. Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: a narrative review of case examples. Health Policy. 2010 Apr;95(1):10–23. Epub 2009 Dec 5. PMID: 19963299.

  32. Nunn JS, Tiller J, Fransquet P, Lacaze P. Public involvement in Global Genomics Research: a scoping review. Front public health. 2019;7:79. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00079.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Sangill C, Buus N, Hybholt L, Berring LL. Service user’s actual involvement in mental health research practices: a scoping review. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2019;28(4):798–815. https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.12594.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Fergusson D, Monfaredi Z, Pussegoda K, et al. The prevalence of patient engagement in published trials: a systematic review. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4:17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-018-0099-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Jagosh J, Macaulay AC, Pluye P, Salsberg J, Bush PL, Henderson J, et al. Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: implications of a realist review for health research and practice. Milbank Q. 2012 Jun;90(2):311–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2012.00665.x. PMID: 22709390; PMCID: PMC3460206.

  36. Camden C, Shikako-Thomas K, Nguyen T, Graham E, Thomas A, Sprung J, et al. Engaging stakeholders in rehabilitation research: a scoping review of strategies used in partnerships and evaluation of impacts. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(15):1390–400. Epub 2014 Sep 22. PMID: 25243763.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Harris J, Haltbakk J, Dunning T, et al. How patient and community involvement in diabetes research influences health outcomes: a realist review. Health Expect. 2019;22(5):907–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12935.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Baines 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 Feb;21(1):327–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12618. Epub 2017 Sep 19. PMID: 28929554; PMCID: PMC5750770.

  39. Vaughn LM, Whetstone C, Boards A, Busch MD, Magnusson M, Määttä S. Partnering with insiders: a review of peer models across community-engaged research, education and social care. Health Soc Care Community. 2018 Nov;26(6):769–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12562. Epub 2018 Mar 7. PMID: 29512217.

  40. Chambers E, Gardiner C, Thompson J, Seymour J. Patient and carer involvement in palliative care research: An integrative qualitative evidence synthesis review. Palliat Med. 2019 Sep;33(8):969–984. doi: 10.1177/0269216319858247. Epub 2019 Jun 28. PMID: 31250702; PMCID: PMC6691598.

  41. Menzies JC, Morris KP, Duncan HP, et al. Patient and public involvement in paediatric intensive care research: considerations, challenges and facilitating factors. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2:32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-016-0046-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Shippee ND, Domecq GJP, Prutsky LGJ, Wang Z, Elraiyah TA, Nabhan M, et al. Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework. Health Expect. 2015 Oct;18(5):1151–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12090. Epub 2013 Jun 3. PMID: 23731468; PMCID: PMC5060820.

  43. Miah J, Dawes P, Edwards S, et al. Patient and public involvement in dementia research in the European Union: a scoping review. BMC Geriatr. 2019;19:220. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-019-1217-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Seers K, Herron-Marx S, Bayliss H. The PIRICOM study: a systematic review of the conceptualisation, measurement, impact and outcomes of patients and public involvement in health. and social care research: University of Warwick; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Jones EL, Williams-Yesson BA, Hackett RC, Staniszewska SH, Evans D, Francis NK. Quality of reporting on patient and public involvement within surgical research: a systematic review. Ann Surg. 2015 Feb;261(2):243 – 50. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000000768. PMID: 24950279.

  46. Staley K. Is it worth doing?’ Measuring the impact of patient and public involvement in research. Res Involv Engagem. 2015;1:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-015-0008-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Dawson 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 Feb;21(1):3–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12597. Epub 2017 Aug 15. PMID: 28812330; PMCID: PMC5750731.

  48. Crocker JC, Ricci-Cabello I, Parker A, Hirst JA, Chant A, Petit-Zeman S et al. Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis BMJ 2018; 363:k4738 doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k4738.

  49. Johnson H, Davies JM, Leniz J, Chukwusa E, Markham S, Sleeman KE. Opportunities for public involvement in big data research in palliative and end-of-life care. Palliat Med. 2021;35(9):1724–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/02692163211002101.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Hobbs G, Tully MP. Realist evaluation of public engagement and involvement in data-intensive health research. Res Involv Engagem. 2020;6:37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-020-00215-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Aitken M, Tully MP, Porteous C, Denegri S, Cunningham-Burley S, Banner N, et al. Consensus Statement on public involvement and Engagement with Data-Intensive Health Research. Int J Popul Data Sci. 2020;4(1). https://doi.org/10.23889/ijpds.v4i1.586.

  52. van Voorn GA, Vemer P, Hamerlijnck D, et al. The missing Stakeholder Group: why patients should be involved in Health Economic Modelling. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14(2):129–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-015-0200-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Jewell A, Pritchard M, Barret K, et al. The Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) data linkage service user and carer advisory group: creating and sustaining a successful patient and public involvement group to guide research in a complex area. Res Involv Engagem. 2019;5:20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-019-0152-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. 1970 British Cohort Study. Centre for Longitudinal Studies. [cited 2021 November 7]. Available from: https://cls.ucl.ac.uk/cls-studies/1970-british-cohort-study/.

  55. National Survey of Health and Development. Medical Research Council. [cited 2021 November 7]. Available from: https://www.nshd.mrc.ac.uk/.

  56. Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. University of Bristol. [cited 2021 November 7]. Available from: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/about/.

  57. Malterud K, Elvbakken KT. Patients participating as co-researchers in health research: a systematic review of outcomes and experiences. Scand J Public Health. 2020 Aug;48(6):617–28. Epub 2019 Jul 18. PMID: 31319762.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This review of reviews was discussed with the Centre for Population Health Patient and Public Involvement Advisory Group which meets quarterly to help set the strategic direction for PPI within the Centre. The draft review was read and commented on several times throughout its development by Dr. Helen Davies and Sarah Peddle – two of the PPI advisory group members. The authors would like to thank the group, and particularly Helen and Sarah, for their valuable input. The authors would also like to thank Kiara Jackson for providing input to the quality assessment section. We thank the peer reviewers for their feedback and suggestions to further improve the manuscript.

Funding

This evidence synthesis was funded by the National Centre for Population Health and Wellbeing Research (CPH). Within the Centre for Population Health our aim is to develop research and interventions to ‘support people’s health and well-being throughout life, with our work exploring and tackling some of today’s most difficult health and social challenges.’ The Centre for Population Health is funded by Health and Care Research Wales.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Medical and Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK

    Soo Vinnicombe, Mayara S. Bianchim & Jane Noyes

Authors
  1. Soo Vinnicombe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mayara S. Bianchim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jane Noyes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JN and SV designed the review of reviews. SV undertook data processing and JN provided advice, oversight and checked data processing and validity. MSB undertook additional critical data checks and revisions to the manuscript. All authors developed the manuscript and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jane Noyes.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vinnicombe, S., Bianchim, M.S. & Noyes, J. A review of reviews exploring patient and public involvement in population health research and development of tools containing best practice guidance. BMC Public Health 23, 1271 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15937-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15937-9

Keywords

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us