7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Patient involvement in preparing health research peer-reviewed publications or results summaries: a systematic review and evidence-based recommendations

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          There are increasing calls for patient involvement in sharing health research results, but no evidence-based recommendations to guide such involvement. Our objectives were to: (1) conduct a systematic review of the evidence on patient involvement in results sharing, (2) propose evidence-based recommendations to help maximize benefits and minimize risks of such involvement and (3) conduct this project with patient authors.

          Methods

          To avoid research waste, we verified that no systematic reviews were registered or published on this topic. We co-created, with patients, a PRISMA-P–compliant protocol. We included peer-reviewed publications reporting the effects of patient involvement in preparing peer-reviewed publications or results summaries from health research studies. We searched (9/10/2017) MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and secondary information sources (until 11/06/2018). We assessed the risk of bias in eligible publications and extracted data using standardized processes. To evaluate patient involvement in this project, we co-created a Patient Authorship Experience Tool.

          Results

          All nine eligible publications reported on patient involvement in preparing publications; none on preparing results summaries. Evidence quality was moderate. A qualitative synthesis of evidence indicated the benefits of patient involvement may outweigh the risks. We have proposed 21 evidence-based recommendations to help maximize the benefits and minimize the risks when involving patients as authors of peer-reviewed publications. The recommendations focus on practical actions patient and non-patient authors can take before (10 recommendations), during (7 recommendations) and after (4 recommendations) manuscript development. Using the Patient Authorship Experience Tool, both patient and non-patient authors rated their experience highly.

          Conclusions

          Based on a systematic review, we have proposed 21 evidence-based recommendations to help maximize the benefits and minimize the risks of involving patients as authors of peer-reviewed publications.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

          David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

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

            GRIPP2 (short form and long form) is the first international guidance for reporting of patient and public involvement in health and social care research. This paper describes the development of the GRIPP2 reporting checklists, which aim to improve the quality, transparency, and consistency of the international patient and public involvement (PPI) evidence base, to ensure that PPI practice is based on the best evidence
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Good Publication Practice for Communicating Company-Sponsored Medical Research: GPP3.

              This updated Good Publication Practice (GPP) guideline, known as GPP3, builds on earlier versions and provides recommendations for individuals and organizations that contribute to the publication of research results sponsored or supported by pharmaceutical, medical device, diagnostics, and biotechnology companies. The recommendations are designed to help individuals and organizations maintain ethical and transparent publication practices and comply with legal and regulatory requirements. These recommendations cover publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations (oral or poster) at scientific congresses. The International Society for Medical Publication Professionals invited more than 3000 professionals worldwide to apply for a position on the steering committee, or as a reviewer, for this guideline. The GPP2 authors reviewed all applications (n = 241) and assembled an 18-member steering committee that represented 7 countries and a diversity of publication professions and institutions. From the 174 selected reviewers, 94 sent comments on the second draft, which steering committee members incorporated after discussion and consensus. The resulting guideline includes new sections (Principles of Good Publication Practice for Company-Sponsored Medical Research, Data Sharing, Studies That Should Be Published, and Plagiarism), expands guidance on the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' authorship criteria and common authorship issues, improves clarity on appropriate author payment and reimbursement, and expands information on the role of medical writers. By following good publication practices (including GPP3), individuals and organizations will show integrity; accountability; and responsibility for accurate, complete, and transparent reporting in their publications and presentations.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                lauri.arnstein@envisionpharmagroup.com
                Journal
                Res Involv Engagem
                Res Involv Engagem
                Research Involvement and Engagement
                BioMed Central (London )
                2056-7529
                24 June 2020
                24 June 2020
                2020
                : 6
                : 34
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Envision the Patient – Envision Pharma Group, Suite 5.11, 5th Floor, 1 Lyric Square, London, W6 0NB UK
                [2 ]Alligent EU – Envision Pharma Group, Wilmslow, UK
                [3 ]GRID grid.136593.b, ISNI 0000 0004 0373 3971, Osaka University, ; Osaka, Japan
                [4 ]Hereditary Angioedema Japan (Registered NPO), Hyogo, Japan
                [5 ]Hereditary Angioedema International (Registered NPO/Charity), Fairfax City, VA USA
                [6 ]GRID grid.451262.6, ISNI 0000 0004 0578 6831, Consumer Forum, , National Cancer Research Institute, ; London, UK
                [7 ]Research Involvement and Engagement, London, UK
                [8 ]International Alliance of Patients’ Organizations, London, UK
                [9 ]Swii.ch Health, Manchester, UK
                [10 ]Curo – Envision Pharma Group, London, UK
                [11 ]Engage – Envision Pharma Group, Southport, CT USA
                [12 ]ProScribe KK – Envision Pharma Group, Tokyo, Japan
                [13 ]GRID grid.1003.2, ISNI 0000 0000 9320 7537, University of Queensland, ; Brisbane, Queensland Australia
                [14 ]GRID grid.1034.6, ISNI 0000 0001 1555 3415, University of the Sunshine Coast, ; Maroochydore DC, Queensland Australia
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4626-7723
                Article
                190
                10.1186/s40900-020-00190-w
                7313171
                32587753
                7e1f6092-006a-4069-b999-fec9d1189501
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open AccessThis 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.

                History
                : 7 August 2019
                : 31 March 2020
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                patient and public involvement,patient participation,ppi,research reporting,systematic review,authorship,medical writing,clinical trials,health research,patient author

                Comments

                Comment on this article