Evaluation of research co-design in health: a systematic overview of reviews and development of a framework.
Consumer participation
End-user engagement
Evaluation
Outcome measures
Research co-design
Stakeholder involvement
Journal
Implementation science : IS
ISSN: 1748-5908
Titre abrégé: Implement Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101258411
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Sep 2024
11 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
01
04
2024
accepted:
31
08
2024
medline:
12
9
2024
pubmed:
12
9
2024
entrez:
11
9
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Co-design with consumers and healthcare professionals is widely used in applied health research. While this approach appears to be ethically the right thing to do, a rigorous evaluation of its process and impact is frequently missing. Evaluation of research co-design is important to identify areas of improvement in the methods and processes, as well as to determine whether research co-design leads to better outcomes. We aimed to build on current literature to develop a framework to assist researchers with the evaluation of co-design processes and impacts. A multifaceted, iterative approach, including three steps, was undertaken to develop a Co-design Evaluation Framework: 1) A systematic overview of reviews; 2) Stakeholder panel meetings to discuss and debate findings from the overview of reviews and 3) Consensus meeting with stakeholder panel. The systematic overview of reviews included relevant papers published between 2000 and 2022. OVID (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO), EBSCOhost (Cinahl) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews were searched for papers that reported co-design evaluation or outcomes in health research. Extracted data was inductively analysed and evaluation themes were identified. Review findings were presented to a stakeholder panel, including consumers, healthcare professionals and researchers, to interpret and critique. A consensus meeting, including a nominal group technique, was applied to agree upon the Co-design Evaluation Framework. A total of 51 reviews were included in the systematic overview of reviews. Fifteen evaluation themes were identified and grouped into the following seven clusters: People (within co-design group), group processes, research processes, co-design context, people (outside co-design group), system and sustainment. If evaluation methods were mentioned, they mainly included qualitative data, informal consumer feedback and researchers' reflections. The Co-Design Evaluation Framework used a tree metaphor to represent the processes and people in the co-design group (below-ground), underpinning system- and people-level outcomes beyond the co-design group (above-ground). To evaluate research co-design, researchers may wish to consider any or all components in the tree. The Co-Design Evaluation Framework has been collaboratively developed with various stakeholders to be used prospectively (planning for evaluation), concurrently (making adjustments during the co-design process) and retrospectively (reviewing past co-design efforts to inform future activities).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Co-design with consumers and healthcare professionals is widely used in applied health research. While this approach appears to be ethically the right thing to do, a rigorous evaluation of its process and impact is frequently missing. Evaluation of research co-design is important to identify areas of improvement in the methods and processes, as well as to determine whether research co-design leads to better outcomes. We aimed to build on current literature to develop a framework to assist researchers with the evaluation of co-design processes and impacts.
METHODS
METHODS
A multifaceted, iterative approach, including three steps, was undertaken to develop a Co-design Evaluation Framework: 1) A systematic overview of reviews; 2) Stakeholder panel meetings to discuss and debate findings from the overview of reviews and 3) Consensus meeting with stakeholder panel. The systematic overview of reviews included relevant papers published between 2000 and 2022. OVID (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO), EBSCOhost (Cinahl) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews were searched for papers that reported co-design evaluation or outcomes in health research. Extracted data was inductively analysed and evaluation themes were identified. Review findings were presented to a stakeholder panel, including consumers, healthcare professionals and researchers, to interpret and critique. A consensus meeting, including a nominal group technique, was applied to agree upon the Co-design Evaluation Framework.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 51 reviews were included in the systematic overview of reviews. Fifteen evaluation themes were identified and grouped into the following seven clusters: People (within co-design group), group processes, research processes, co-design context, people (outside co-design group), system and sustainment. If evaluation methods were mentioned, they mainly included qualitative data, informal consumer feedback and researchers' reflections. The Co-Design Evaluation Framework used a tree metaphor to represent the processes and people in the co-design group (below-ground), underpinning system- and people-level outcomes beyond the co-design group (above-ground). To evaluate research co-design, researchers may wish to consider any or all components in the tree.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The Co-Design Evaluation Framework has been collaboratively developed with various stakeholders to be used prospectively (planning for evaluation), concurrently (making adjustments during the co-design process) and retrospectively (reviewing past co-design efforts to inform future activities).
Identifiants
pubmed: 39261956
doi: 10.1186/s13012-024-01394-4
pii: 10.1186/s13012-024-01394-4
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
63Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Systematic reviews and research waste. Lancet. 2016;387(10014):122–3.
pubmed: 26841991
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01353-7
Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86–9.
pubmed: 19525005
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9
Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014;383(9913):267–76.
pubmed: 24411647
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X
Ioannidis JP. Why Most Clinical Research Is Not Useful. PLoS Med. 2016;13(6):e1002049.
pubmed: 27328301
pmcid: 4915619
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002049
Oliver S. Patient involvement in setting research agendas. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;18(9):935–8.
pubmed: 16894304
doi: 10.1097/01.meg.0000230089.68545.45
Slattery P, Saeri AK, Bragge P. Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):17.
pubmed: 32046728
pmcid: 7014755
doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-0528-9
Ní Shé É, Harrison R. Mitigating unintended consequences of co-design in health care. Health Expect. 2021;24(5):1551–6.
pubmed: 34339528
pmcid: 8483209
doi: 10.1111/hex.13308
Peters S, Sukumar K, Blanchard S, Ramasamy A, Malinowski J, Ginex P, et al. Trends in guideline implementation: an updated scoping review. Implement Sci. 2022;17:50.
pubmed: 35870974
pmcid: 9308215
doi: 10.1186/s13012-022-01223-6
Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, Craig P, Baird J, Blazeby JM, et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2021;374:n2061.
pubmed: 34593508
pmcid: 8482308
doi: 10.1136/bmj.n2061
Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ. 2017;358:j3453.
pubmed: 28768629
pmcid: 5539518
doi: 10.1136/bmj.j3453
Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, Wang Z, Nabhan M, Shippee N, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:89.
pubmed: 24568690
pmcid: 3938901
doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-89
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;16(1):5.
pubmed: 29415734
pmcid: 5804082
doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0282-4
Fergusson D, Monfaredi Z, Pussegoda K, Garritty C, Lyddiatt A, Shea B, et al. The prevalence of patient engagement in published trials: a systematic review. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4:17.
pubmed: 29796308
pmcid: 5963039
doi: 10.1186/s40900-018-0099-x
Vat LE, Finlay T, Jan Schuitmaker-Warnaar T, Fahy N, Robinson P, Boudes M, et al. Evaluating the “return on patient engagement initiatives” in medicines research and development: A literature review. Health Expect. 2020;23(1):5–18.
pubmed: 31489988
doi: 10.1111/hex.12951
Luger TM, Hamilton AB, True G. Measuring Community-Engaged Research Contexts, Processes, and Outcomes: A Mapping Review. Milbank Q. 2020;98(2):493–553.
pubmed: 32428339
pmcid: 7296434
doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12458
Modigh A, Sampaio F, Moberg L, Fredriksson M. The impact of patient and public involvement in health research versus healthcare: A scoping review of reviews. Health Policy. 2021;125(9):1208–21.
pubmed: 34376328
doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2021.07.008
Clavel N, Paquette J, Dumez V, Del Grande C, Ghadiri DPS, Pomey MP, et al. Patient engagement in care: A scoping review of recently validated tools assessing patients’ and healthcare professionals’ preferences and experience. Health Expect. 2021;24(6):1924–35.
pubmed: 34399008
pmcid: 8628592
doi: 10.1111/hex.13344
Newman B, Joseph K, Chauhan A, Seale H, Li J, Manias E, et al. Do patient engagement interventions work for all patients? A systematic review and realist synthesis of interventions to enhance patient safety. Health Expect. 2021;24:1905 No Pagination Specified.
pubmed: 34432339
pmcid: 8628590
doi: 10.1111/hex.13343
Lowe D, Ryan R, Schonfeld L, Merner B, Walsh L, Graham-Wisener L, et al. Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;9:CD013373.
pubmed: 34523117
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;24(1):240–53.
pubmed: 29076631
doi: 10.1111/jep.12805
Sarrami-Foroushani P, Travaglia J, Debono D, Braithwaite J. Implementing strategies in consumer and community engagement in health care: results of a large-scale, scoping meta-review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:402.
pubmed: 25230846
pmcid: 4177168
doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-402
Abrams R, Park S, Wong G, Rastogi J, Boylan A-M, Tierney S, et al. Lost in reviews: Looking for the involvement of stakeholders, patients, public and other non-researcher contributors in realist reviews. Research Synthesis Methods. 2021;12(2):239–47.
pubmed: 32985074
doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1459
Zych MM, Berta WB, Gagliardi AR. Conceptualising the initiation of researcher and research user partnerships: a meta-narrative review. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):24.
pubmed: 32070367
pmcid: 7029453
doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-0536-9
Gates M, Gates A, Pieper D, Fernandes RM, Tricco AC, Moher D, et al. Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement. BMJ. 2022;378:e070849.
pubmed: 35944924
pmcid: 9361065
doi: 10.1136/bmj-2022-070849
Pollock A, Campbell P, Brunton G, Hunt H, Estcourt L. Selecting and implementing overview methods: implications from five exemplar overviews. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):145.
pubmed: 28720141
pmcid: 5516331
doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0534-3
Greenhalgh T, Hinton L, Finlay T, Macfarlane A, Fahy N, Clyde B, et al. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co-design pilot. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care & Health Policy. 2019;22(4):785–801.
doi: 10.1111/hex.12888
Hughes M, Duffy C. Public involvement in health and social sciences research: A concept analysis. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care & Health Policy. 2018;21(6):1183–90.
doi: 10.1111/hex.12825
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2008;3(2):77–101.
doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Waggoner J, Carline JD, Durning SJ. Is There a Consensus on Consensus Methodology? Descriptions and Recommendations for Future Consensus Research. Acad Med. 2016;91(5):663–8.
pubmed: 26796090
doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001092
Harvey N, Holmes CA. Nominal group technique: an effective method for obtaining group consensus. Int J Nurs Pract. 2012;18(2):188–94.
pubmed: 22435983
doi: 10.1111/j.1440-172X.2012.02017.x
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.
pubmed: 33782057
pmcid: 8005924
doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
Baldwin JN, Napier S, Neville S, Clair VAWS. Impacts of older people’s patient and public involvement in health and social care research: a systematic review. Age Ageing. 2018;47(6):801–9.
pubmed: 29939208
doi: 10.1093/ageing/afy092
Bench S, Eassom E, Poursanidou K. The nature and extent of service user involvement in critical care research and quality improvement: A scoping review of the literature. Int J Consum Stud. 2018;42(2):217–31.
doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12406
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. 2018;17(8):944–75.
pubmed: 30373460
doi: 10.1177/1471301218789292
Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, et al. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. 2014;7(4):387–95.
pubmed: 25034612
doi: 10.1007/s40271-014-0065-0
Di Lorito C, Birt L, Poland F, Csipke E, Gove D, Diaz-Ponce A, et al. A synthesis of the evidence on peer research with potentially vulnerable adults: how this relates to dementia. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2017;32(1):58–67.
pubmed: 27633160
doi: 10.1002/gps.4577
Di Lorito C, Bosco A, Birt L, Hassiotis A. Co-research with adults with intellectual disability: A systematic review. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2018;31(5):669–86.
pubmed: 29231285
doi: 10.1111/jar.12435
Fox G, Fergusson DA, Daham Z, Youssef M, Foster M, Poole E, et al. Patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research: A scoping review. EBioMedicine. 2021;70:103484.
pubmed: 34280783
pmcid: 8318845
doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2021.103484
Frankena TK, Naaldenberg J, Cardol M, Linehan C, van Schrojenstein Lantman-de Valk H. Active involvement of people with intellectual disabilities in health research - a structured literature review. Res Dev Disabil. 2015;45–46:271–83.
pubmed: 26280692
doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2015.08.004
Fudge N, Wolfe CD, McKevitt C. Involving older people in health research. Age Ageing. 2007;36(5):492–500.
pubmed: 17395618
doi: 10.1093/ageing/afm029
George AS, Mehra V, Scott K, Sriram V. Community participation in health systems research: A systematic review assessing the state of research, the nature of interventions involved and the features of engagement with communities. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):ArtID e0141091.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0141091
Legare F, Boivin A, van der Weijden T, Pakenham C, Burgers J, Legare J, et al. Patient and public involvement in clinical practice guidelines: A knowledge synthesis of existing programs. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(6):E45–74.
pubmed: 21959267
doi: 10.1177/0272989X11424401
McCarron TL, Clement F, Rasiah J, Moran C, Moffat K, Gonzalez A, et al. Patients as partners in health research: a scoping review. Health Expect. 2021;24:1378 No Pagination Specified.
pubmed: 34153165
pmcid: 8369093
doi: 10.1111/hex.13272
Miller J, Knott V, Wilson C, Roder D. A review of community engagement in cancer control studies among indigenous people of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA. Eur J Cancer Care. 2012;21(3):283–95.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2012.01325.x
Shen S, Doyle-Thomas KAR, Beesley L, Karmali A, Williams L, Tanel N, et al. How and why should we engage parents as co-researchers in health research? A scoping review of current practices. Health Expect. 2017;20(4):543–54.
pubmed: 27516003
doi: 10.1111/hex.12490
Velvin G, Hartman T, Bathen T. Patient involvement in rare diseases research: a scoping review of the literature and mixed method evaluation of Norwegian researchers’ experiences and perceptions. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2022;17(1):212.
pubmed: 35642001
pmcid: 9158134
doi: 10.1186/s13023-022-02357-y
Wiles LK, Kay D, Luker JA, Worley A, Austin J, Ball A, et al. Consumer engagement in health care policy, research and services: A systematic review and meta-analysis of methods and effects. PLoS One. 2022;17:e0261808.no pagination
pubmed: 35085276
pmcid: 8794088
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261808
Cook N, Siddiqi N, Twiddy M, Kenyon R. Patient and public involvement in health research in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2019;9(5):e026514.
pubmed: 31076471
pmcid: 6528003
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026514
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;33(8):969–84.
pubmed: 31250702
pmcid: 6691598
doi: 10.1177/0269216319858247
Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, et al. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2014;17(5):637–50.
pubmed: 22809132
doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x
Boaz A, Hanney S, Jones T, Soper B. Does the engagement of clinicians and organisations in research improve healthcare performance: a three-stage review. BMJ Open. 2015;5(12):e009415.
pubmed: 26656023
pmcid: 4680006
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009415
Boivin A, L’Esperance A, Gauvin FP, Dumez V, Macaulay AC, Lehoux P, et al. Patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making: A systematic review of evaluation tools. Health Expect. 2018;21(6):1075–84.
pubmed: 30062858
pmcid: 6250878
doi: 10.1111/hex.12804
Anderst A, Conroy K, Fairbrother G, Hallam L, McPhail A, Taylor V. Engaging consumers in health research: a narrative review. Aust Health Rev. 2020;44(5):806–13.
pubmed: 32780985
doi: 10.1071/AH19202
Arnstein L, Wadsworth AC, Yamamoto BA, Stephens R, Sehmi K, Jones R, et al. Patient involvement in preparing health research peer-reviewed publications or results summaries: a systematic review and evidence-based recommendations. Res Involv Engagem. 2020;6:34.
pubmed: 32587753
pmcid: 7313171
doi: 10.1186/s40900-020-00190-w
Becerril-Montekio V, Garcia-Bello LA, Torres-Pereda P, Alcalde-Rabanal J, Reveiz L, Langlois EV. Collaboration between health system decision makers and professional researchers to coproduce knowledge, a scoping review. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2022;28:28.
Bird M, Ouellette C, Whitmore C, Li L, Nair K, McGillion MH, et al. Preparing for patient partnership: A scoping review of patient partner engagement and evaluation in research. Health Expect. 2020;23:523 No Pagination Specified.
pubmed: 32157777
pmcid: 7321722
doi: 10.1111/hex.13040
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;21(1):3–22.
pubmed: 28812330
doi: 10.1111/hex.12597
Harris J, Haltbakk J, Dunning T, Austrheim G, Kirkevold M, Johnson M, et al. How patient and community involvement in diabetes research influences health outcomes: A realist review. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care & Health Policy. 2019;22(5):907–20.
doi: 10.1111/hex.12935
Hubbard G, Kidd L, Donaghy E. Involving people affected by cancer in research: a review of literature. Eur J Cancer Care. 2008;17(3):233–44.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2007.00842.x
Hubbard G, Kidd L, Donaghy E, McDonald C, Kearney N. A review of literature about involving people affected by cancer in research, policy and planning and practice. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;65(1):21–33.
pubmed: 16860517
doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2006.02.009
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;261(2):243–50.
pubmed: 24950279
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000768
Drahota A, Meza RD, Brikho B, Naaf M, Estabillo JA, Gomez ED, et al. Community-Academic Partnerships: A Systematic Review of the State of the Literature and Recommendations for Future Research. Milbank Q. 2016;94(1):163–214.
pubmed: 26994713
pmcid: 4941973
doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12184
Forsythe LP, Szydlowski V, Murad MH, Ip S, Wang Z, Elraiyah TA, et al. A systematic review of approaches for engaging patients for research on rare diseases. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(Suppl 3):788–800.
pmcid: 4124116
doi: 10.1007/s11606-014-2895-9
Lander J, Hainz T, Hirschberg I, Strech D. Current practice of public involvement activities in biomedical research and innovation: a systematic qualitative review. PLoS One [Electronic Resource]. 2014;9(12):e113274.
pubmed: 25469705
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113274
Lee DJ, Avulova S, Conwill R, Barocas DA. Patient engagement in the design and execution of urologic oncology research. Urol Oncol. 2017;35(9):552–8.
pubmed: 28755961
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.07.002
Malterud K, Elvbakken KT. Patients participating as co-researchers in health research: A systematic review of outcomes and experiences. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. 2020;48(6):617–28.
pubmed: 31319762
doi: 10.1177/1403494819863514
Miah J, Dawes P, Edwards S, Leroi I, Starling B, Parsons S. Patient and public involvement in dementia research in the European Union: a scoping review. BMC geriatr. 2019;19(1):220.
pubmed: 31412788
pmcid: 6694462
doi: 10.1186/s12877-019-1217-9
Nilsen ES, Myrhaug HT, Johansen M, Oliver S, Oxman AD. Methods of consumer involvement in developing healthcare policy and research, clinical practice guidelines and patient information material. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;2006(3):CD004563.
pubmed: 16856050
pmcid: 6464810
Oliver S, Clarke-Jones L, Rees R, Milne R, Buchanan P, Gabbay J, et al. Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: developing an evidence-based approach. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(15):1-148 III-IV.
pubmed: 15080866
doi: 10.3310/hta8150
Orlowski SK, Lawn S, Venning A, Winsall M, Jones GM, Wyld K, et al. Participatory Research as One Piece of the Puzzle: A Systematic Review of Consumer Involvement in Design of Technology-Based Youth Mental Health and Well-Being Interventions. JMIR Hum Factors. 2015;2(2):e12.
pubmed: 27025279
pmcid: 4797690
doi: 10.2196/humanfactors.4361
Pii KH, Schou LH, Piil K, Jarden M. Current trends in patient and public involvement in cancer research: A systematic review. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care & Health Policy. 2019;22(1):3–20.
doi: 10.1111/hex.12841
Sandoval JA, Lucero J, Oetzel J, Avila M, Belone L, Mau M, et al. Process and outcome constructs for evaluating community-based participatory research projects: a matrix of existing measures. Health Educ Res. 2012;27(4):680–90.
pubmed: 21940460
doi: 10.1093/her/cyr087
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.
pubmed: 30938019
doi: 10.1111/inm.12594
Schelven F, Boeije H, Marien V, Rademakers J. Patient and public involvement of young people with a chronic condition in projects in health and social care: A scoping review. Health Expect. 2020;23:789 No Pagination Specified.
pubmed: 32372423
pmcid: 7495073
doi: 10.1111/hex.13069
Schilling I, Gerhardus A. Methods for Involving Older People in Health Research-A Review of the Literature. International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health [Electronic Resource]. 2017;14(12):29.
Shippee ND, Domecq Garces JP, Prutsky Lopez GJ, Wang Z, Elraiyah TA, Nabhan M, et al. Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):1151–66.
pubmed: 23731468
doi: 10.1111/hex.12090
Vaughn LM, Jacquez F, Lindquist-Grantz R, Parsons A, Melink K. Immigrants as research partners: A review of immigrants in community-based participatory research (CBPR). J Immigr Minor Health. 2017;19(6):1457–68.
pubmed: 27491305
doi: 10.1007/s10903-016-0474-3
Walmsley J, Strnadova I, Johnson K. The added value of inclusive research. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2018;31(5):751–9.
pubmed: 29231273
doi: 10.1111/jar.12431
Weschke S, Franzen DL, Sierawska AK, Bonde LS, Strech D. Schorr SG. Reporting of patient involvement: A mixed-methods analysis of current practice in health research publications. medRxiv; 2022. p. 21.
Gradinger F, Britten N, Wyatt K, Froggatt K, Gibson A, Jacoby A, et al. Values associated with public involvement in health and social care research: A narrative review. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care & Health Policy. 2015;18(5):661–75.
doi: 10.1111/hex.12158
Hoekstra F, Mrklas KJ, Khan M, McKay RC, Vis-Dunbar M, Sibley KM, et al. A review of reviews on principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts of research partnerships approaches: A first step in synthesising the research partnership literature. Health Res Pol Syst. 2020;18(1):51 no pagination.
doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-0544-9
Stallings SC, Boyer AP, Joosten YA, Novak LL, Richmond A, Vaughn YC, et al. A taxonomy of impacts on clinical and translational research from community stakeholder engagement. Health Expect. 2019;22(4):731–42.
pubmed: 31321849
pmcid: 6737764
doi: 10.1111/hex.12937
Grindell C, Coates E, Croot L, O’Cathain A. The use of co-production, co-design and co-creation to mobilise knowledge in the management of health conditions: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):877.
pubmed: 35799251
pmcid: 9264579
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08079-y
Staley K. “Is it worth doing?” Measuring the impact of patient and public involvement in research. Res Involv Engagem. 2015;1:6.
pubmed: 29062495
pmcid: 5598089
doi: 10.1186/s40900-015-0008-5