Objectives Involvement of patients, health professionals, and the wider public (‘stakeholders’) is seen to be beneficial to the quality, relevance and impact of research and may enhance the usefulness and uptake of systematic reviews. However, there is a lack of evidence and resources to guide researchers in how to actively involve stakeholders in systematic reviews. In this paper, we report the development of the ACTIVE framework to describe how stakeholders are involved in systematic reviews. Methods We developed a framework using methods previously described in the development of conceptual frameworks relating to other areas of public involvement, including: literature searching, data extraction, analysis, and categorization. A draft ACTIVE framework was developed and then refined after presentation at a conference workshop, before being applied to a subset of 32 systematic reviews. Data extracted from these systematic reviews, identified in a systematic scoping review, were categorized against pre-defined constructs, including: who was involved, how stakeholders were recruited, the mode of involvement, at what stage there was involvement and the level of control or influence. Results The final ACTIVE framework described whether patients, carers and/or families, and/or other stakeholders (including health professionals, health decision makers and funders) were involved. We defined: recruitment as either open or closed; the approach to involvement as either one-time, continuous or combined; and the method of involvement as either direct or indirect. The stage of involvement in reviews was defined using the Cochrane Ecosystem stages of a review. The level of control or influence was defined according to the roles and activities of stakeholders in the review process, and described as the ACTIVE continuum of involvement. Conclusions The ACTIVE framework provides a structure with which to describe key components of stakeholder involvement within a systematic review, and we have used this to summarize how stakeholders have been involved in a subset of varied systematic reviews. The ACTIVE continuum of involvement provides a new model that uses tasks and roles to detail the level of stakeholder involvement. This work has contributed to the development of learning resources aimed at supporting systematic review authors and editors to involve stakeholders in their systematic reviews. The ACTIVE framework may support the decision-making of systematic review authors in planning how to involve stakeholders in future reviews.

BackgroundThere is increasing recognition that it is good practice to involve stakeholders (meaning patients, the public, health professionals and others) in systematic reviews, but limited evidence about how best to do this. We aimed to document the evidence-base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews.MethodsWe carried out a scoping review, following a published protocol. We searched multiple electronic databases (2010–2016), using a stepwise searching approach, supplemented with hand searching. Two authors independently screened and discussed the first 500 abstracts and, after clarifying selection criteria, screened a further 500. Agreement on screening decisions was 97%, so screening was done by one reviewer only. Pre-planned data extraction was completed, and the comprehensiveness of the description of methods of involvement judged. Additional data extraction was completed for papers judged to have most comprehensive descriptions. Three stakeholder representatives were co-authors for this systematic review.ResultsWe included 291 papers in which stakeholders were involved in a systematic review. Thirty percent involved patients and/or carers. Thirty-two percent were from the USA, 26% from the UK and 10% from Canada. Ten percent (32 reviews) were judged to provide a comprehensive description of methods of involving stakeholders. Sixty-nine percent (22/32) personally invited people to be involved; 22% (7/32) advertised opportunities to the general population. Eighty-one percent (26/32) had between 1 and 20 face-to-face meetings, with 83% of these holding ≤ 4 meetings. Meetings lasted 1 h to ½ day. Nineteen percent (6/32) used a Delphi method, most often involving three electronic rounds. Details of ethical approval were reported by 10/32. Expenses were reported to be paid to people involved in 8/32 systematic reviews.Discussion/conclusionWe identified a relatively large number (291) of papers reporting stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, but the quality of reporting was generally very poor. Information from a subset of papers judged to provide the best descriptions of stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews provide examples of different ways in which stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. These examples arguably currently provide the best available information to inform and guide decisions around the planning of stakeholder involvement within future systematic reviews. This evidence has been used to develop online learning resources.Systematic review registrationThe protocol for this systematic review was published on 21 April 2017. Publication reference: Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H, Watts C, Morley R: Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects. Research Involvement and Engagement 2017, 3:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0060-4.Electronic supplement...

BackgroundTraining in patient and public involvement (PPI) is recommended, yet little is known about what training is needed. We explored researchers’ and PPI contributors’ accounts of PPI activity and training to inform the design of PPI training for both parties.MethodsWe used semi-structured qualitative interviews with researchers (chief investigators and trial managers) and PPI contributors, accessed through a cohort of clinical trials, which had been funded between 2006 and 2010. An analysis of transcripts of audio-recorded interviews drew on the constant comparative method.ResultsWe interviewed 31 researchers and 17 PPI contributors from 28 trials. Most researchers could see some value in PPI training for researchers, although just under half had received such training themselves, and some had concerns about the purpose and evidence base for PPI training. PPI contributors were evenly split in their perceptions of whether researchers needed training in PPI. Few PPI contributors had themselves received training for their roles. Many informants across all groups felt that training PPI contributors was unnecessary because they already possessed the skills needed. Informants were also concerned that training would professionalise PPI contributors, limiting their ability to provide an authentic patient perspective. However, informants welcomed informal induction ‘conversations’ to help contributors understand their roles and support them in voicing their opinions. Informants believed that PPI contributors should be confident, motivated, intelligent, focussed on helping others and have relevant experience. Researchers looked for these qualities when selecting contributors, and spoke of how finding ‘the right’ contributor was more important than accessing ‘the right’ training.ConclusionsWhile informants were broadly receptive to PPI training for researchers, they expressed considerable reluctance to training PPI contributors. Providers of training will need to address these reservations. Our findings point to the importance of reconsidering how training is conceptualised, designed and promoted and of providing flexible, learning opportunities in ways that flow from researchers’ and contributors’ needs and preferences. We also identify some areas of training content and the need for further consideration to be given to the selection of PPI contributors and models for implementing PPI to ensure clinical trials benefit from a diversity of patient perspectives.

No abstract

No abstract