Çeviri
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

GRIPP2 Reporting Checklists: Tools to Improve Reporting of Patient and Public Involvement in Research

Yıl 2024, , 98 - 106, 28.03.2024
https://doi.org/10.31125/hunhemsire.1137643

Öz

Background: Over the past decade, research articles on patient and public involvement have been published. However, there is no detailed information on this process.
Objective: This study aimed to collaboratively involve patients as research stakeholders at all stages of the development of GRIPP2 (Guidelines for Reporting of Patient and Public Involvement in Research).
Methods: In the first stage, a systematic review of the evidence was conducted using the EQUATOR method. In the second stage, a three-round Delphi questionnaire was used to develop consensus on the items to be included in the guide. A total of 143 international participants with experience in patient and public involvement in research from different countries were asked to rate each item on a checklist from 1 to 10. In addition, the evaluators were asked to comment on each item, and a thematic analysis was conducted for qualitative comments. In the third stage, an agreement was reached on the items that could not be agreed upon in the Delphi process through face-to-face interviews with 25 experts.
Results: One 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.
Conclusions: GRIPP2-LF and GRIPP2-SF are the first international evidence-based guidelines to report patient and public involvement in research.

Kaynakça

  • Staniszewska S, Brett J, Mockford C, Barber R. The GRIPP checklist: strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:391–9. doi:10.1017/S0266462311000481.
  • Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2014;17:637–50. doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x.
  • Mockford C, Staniszewska S, Griffiths F, Herron-Marx S. The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care. 2012;24:28–38. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzr066.
  • Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. Patient. 2014;7:387–95. doi:10.1007/s40271-014-0065-0.
  • Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000217. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217.
  • Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:89. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-89.
  • Shippee ND, Domecq Garces JP, Prutsky Lopez GJ, et al. Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesised framework. Health Expect. 2013;18:1151–66.
  • Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Lepage-Savary D, et al. Introducing patients’ and the public’s perspectives to health technology assessment: A systematic review of international experiences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:31–42. doi:10.1017/S0266462310001315.
  • Staley K. Exploring impact: public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2009. http://www.invo.org.uk/posttypepublication/exploring-impact-public-involvement-in-nhs-public-health-andsocial-care-research/.
  • National Institute for Health. Going the extra mile: improving the nation’s health and wellbeing through public involvement in research. 2015. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/about-us/documents/Extra%20Mile2.pdf.
  • Tarrow S. Power in movement: Social movements, collective action and politics: Cambridge University Press; 1994.
  • Health Technology Assessment International Patient and Citizen Involvement subgroup. http://www.htai.org/interest-groups/patient-and citizen-involvement.html.
  • Moher D. Reporting research results: a moral obligation for all researchers. Can J Anaesth. 2007;54:331–5. doi:10.1007/BF03022653.
  • Moher D. Guidelines for reporting health care research: advancing the clarity and transparency of scientific reporting. Can J Anaesth. 2009;56:96–101. doi:10.1007/s12630-008-9027-0.
  • Little J, Higgins J, Ioannidis JPA, et al. STROBE Extension to Generic Association Studies. STREGA (STrengthening the reporting of generic association studies). PLoS Med. 2009;6:e22. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000022.
  • Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:40–4. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-138-1-200301070-00010.
  • Brett J, Staniszewska S, Simera I, et al. Reaching consensus on reporting patient and public involvement (PPI): lessons learned from the development of reporting guidelines. Submitted (forthcoming).
  • Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
  • Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869. doi:10.1136/bmj.c869.
  • Kuhn TS. The structure of scientific Revolutions. 50th anniversary. Ian Hacking (Introd.). 4th ed: University of Chicago Press; 2012. p. 264. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226458144.001.0001.
  • Wilson P, Mathie E, Keenan J, et al. ReseArch with Patient and Public involvement: a RealisT evaluation—the RAPPORT study: Health Services and Delivery Research; 2015. p. 3. doi:10.3310/hsdr03380.
  • Stephens R, Staniszewska S. One small step…. Research Involvement and Engagement; 2015. p. 1. doi: 10.1186/s40900-015-0005-8.

GRIPP2 Raporlama Kontrol Listeleri: Hastaların ve Toplumun Araştırmalara Katılımının Raporlanmasını İyileştirmeye Yönelik Araçlar

Yıl 2024, , 98 - 106, 28.03.2024
https://doi.org/10.31125/hunhemsire.1137643

Öz

Arka plan: Araştırmalara hasta ve toplumun katılımı konusundaki kanıt tabanı son on yılda genişlemiş olsa da, makalelerdeki raporlamanın kalitesi genellikle tutarsızdır ve çalışmaların işlerliğiyle ilgili nasıllık, bağlam, hedef kitle ve nedenler gibi konularda anlayışımızı sınırlandırmaktadır.
Amaç: Hasta ve toplumun katılımı kanıt tabanının kalitesini, şeffaflığını ve tutarlılığını artırmak için rapor edilecek temel unsurlar üzerinde uluslararası bir fikir birliği geliştirmektir. Çalışma aynı zamanda, GRIPP2 (Hastaların ve Toplumun Araştırmalara Katılımını Raporlama Rehberi)'nin geliştirilmesinin tüm aşamalarında hastaları araştırma paydaşları olarak işbirliği içinde çalışmaya dâhil etmeyi amaçlamaktadır.
Yöntem: Raporlama yönergelerini geliştirmek için EQUATOR yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Orijinal GRIPP kontrol listesi, güncellenmiş sistematik inceleme kanıtlarına dayalı olarak revize edilmiştir. Rehbere dâhil edilecek maddeler üzerinde fikir birliği geliştirmek için üç aşamalı bir Delphi anketi kullanılmıştır. Takip eden bir yüz yüze görüşme seansında, Delphi sürecinde uzlaşmaya varılamayan maddeler üzerinde anlaşma sağlanmıştır.
Bulgular: Birinci tura 143 katılımcı katılmayı kabul etmiştir. Yanıt oranı ikinci turda %86 (123/143) ve üçüncü turda %78 (112/143) olmuştur. Delphi anketi, uzun form (LF) ve kısa form (SF) sürümlere olan gereksinimi ortaya koymuştur. GRIPP2-LF, amaçlar, tanımlar, kavramlar ve teori, katılımın yöntemleri, aşamaları ve doğası, bağlam, etkinin tespit edilmesi veya ölçülmesi, sonuçlar, ekonomik değerlendirme ve yansımalar hakkında 34 madde içermektedir ve ana odağın hasta ve toplumun katılımı olan çalışmalar için uygundur. GRIPP2-SF ise amaçlar, yöntemler, bulgular, sonuçlar ve eleştirel bakış açısına ilişkin beş madde içerir ve hasta ve toplumun katılımının ikincil odak noktası olduğu çalışmalar için uygundur.
Sonuçlar: GRIPP2-LF ve GRIPP2-SF, araştırmalara hasta ve toplumun katılımını raporlamak için ilk uluslararası kanıt temelli, üzerinde uzlaşmaya varılmış rehberliği temsil etmektedir. GRIPP2'nin her iki sürümü de, hasta ve toplumun katılımı uygulamasının en iyi kanıtlara temellenmesini sağlamak için uluslararası hasta ve toplumun katılımı kanıt tabanının kalitesini, şeffaflığını ve tutarlılığını geliştirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Geniş çapta yayılmasını teşvik etmek için bu makaleye BMJ ve Research Involvement and Engagement dergisinin web sitelerinden ücretsiz olarak erişilebilir.

Kaynakça

  • Staniszewska S, Brett J, Mockford C, Barber R. The GRIPP checklist: strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:391–9. doi:10.1017/S0266462311000481.
  • Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2014;17:637–50. doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x.
  • Mockford C, Staniszewska S, Griffiths F, Herron-Marx S. The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care. 2012;24:28–38. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzr066.
  • Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. Patient. 2014;7:387–95. doi:10.1007/s40271-014-0065-0.
  • Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000217. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217.
  • Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:89. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-89.
  • Shippee ND, Domecq Garces JP, Prutsky Lopez GJ, et al. Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesised framework. Health Expect. 2013;18:1151–66.
  • Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Lepage-Savary D, et al. Introducing patients’ and the public’s perspectives to health technology assessment: A systematic review of international experiences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:31–42. doi:10.1017/S0266462310001315.
  • Staley K. Exploring impact: public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2009. http://www.invo.org.uk/posttypepublication/exploring-impact-public-involvement-in-nhs-public-health-andsocial-care-research/.
  • National Institute for Health. Going the extra mile: improving the nation’s health and wellbeing through public involvement in research. 2015. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/about-us/documents/Extra%20Mile2.pdf.
  • Tarrow S. Power in movement: Social movements, collective action and politics: Cambridge University Press; 1994.
  • Health Technology Assessment International Patient and Citizen Involvement subgroup. http://www.htai.org/interest-groups/patient-and citizen-involvement.html.
  • Moher D. Reporting research results: a moral obligation for all researchers. Can J Anaesth. 2007;54:331–5. doi:10.1007/BF03022653.
  • Moher D. Guidelines for reporting health care research: advancing the clarity and transparency of scientific reporting. Can J Anaesth. 2009;56:96–101. doi:10.1007/s12630-008-9027-0.
  • Little J, Higgins J, Ioannidis JPA, et al. STROBE Extension to Generic Association Studies. STREGA (STrengthening the reporting of generic association studies). PLoS Med. 2009;6:e22. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000022.
  • Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:40–4. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-138-1-200301070-00010.
  • Brett J, Staniszewska S, Simera I, et al. Reaching consensus on reporting patient and public involvement (PPI): lessons learned from the development of reporting guidelines. Submitted (forthcoming).
  • Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
  • Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869. doi:10.1136/bmj.c869.
  • Kuhn TS. The structure of scientific Revolutions. 50th anniversary. Ian Hacking (Introd.). 4th ed: University of Chicago Press; 2012. p. 264. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226458144.001.0001.
  • Wilson P, Mathie E, Keenan J, et al. ReseArch with Patient and Public involvement: a RealisT evaluation—the RAPPORT study: Health Services and Delivery Research; 2015. p. 3. doi:10.3310/hsdr03380.
  • Stephens R, Staniszewska S. One small step…. Research Involvement and Engagement; 2015. p. 1. doi: 10.1186/s40900-015-0005-8.
Toplam 22 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Hemşirelik (Diğer)
Bölüm Çeviri
Yazarlar

Hicran Bektaş 0000-0002-3356-3120

Merve Gözde Sezgin 0000-0001-9076-2735

Çevirmenler

Hicran Bektaş 0000-0002-3356-3120

Merve Gözde Sezgin 0000-0001-9076-2735

Erken Görünüm Tarihi 28 Mart 2024
Yayımlanma Tarihi 28 Mart 2024
Gönderilme Tarihi 29 Haziran 2022
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2024

Kaynak Göster

Vancouver Bektaş H, Sezgin MG. GRIPP2 Raporlama Kontrol Listeleri: Hastaların ve Toplumun Araştırmalara Katılımının Raporlanmasını İyileştirmeye Yönelik Araçlar. HUHEMFAD. 2024;11(1):98-106.