Toward more mindful reporting of patient and public involvement in healthcare

Research Involvement and Engagement

Brett Scholz¹  Alan Bevan² 

[1] ANU Medical School, Ngunnawal Country, The Australian National University;School of Psychology, Kaurna Country, North Terrace, The University of Adelaide;

关键词: Patient partners;    Research reporting;    Checklists;    Consumer leadership;    Consumer researchers;    Lived experience leadership;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s40900-021-00308-8

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

Plain English summary Checklists (such as the GRIPP2) have been proposed as a way to improve how research papers report patient and public involvement in research projects. We were recently asked to complete a GRIPP2 as part of a peer review process, and it felt divisive. AB—a service user researcher—was just as much a part of the research team as was BS—a critical health psychologist. However, the role of BS in the research did not have to be justified or reported in the same way that was being asked of AB. A further concern about being required to use the checklist was that it did not necessarily lead to better reporting. Rather, it created a false sense of objectivity about patient and public involvement, and this might serve to hide power imbalances and tokenism in the research process. We recommend that instead of relying on such checklists, that researchers, reviewers, editors and readers reflect on patient and public involvement processes and the ways in which these are reported. We also make recommendations to make future iterations of the GRIPP more inclusive.

【 授权许可】

Unknown