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

Abstract

BackgroundWhile the patient and public involvement (PPI) evidence base has expanded over the past decade, the quality of reporting within papers is often inconsistent, limiting our understanding of how it works, in what context, for whom, and why.ObjectiveTo develop international consensus on the key items to report to enhance the quality, transparency, and consistency of the PPI evidence base. To collaboratively involve patients as research partners at all stages in the development of GRIPP2.MethodsThe EQUATOR method for developing reporting guidelines was used. The original GRIPP (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public) checklist was revised, based on updated systematic review evidence. A three round Delphi survey was used to develop consensus on items to be included in the guideline. A subsequent face-to-face meeting produced agreement on items not reaching consensus during the Delphi process.ResultsOne 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.ConclusionsGRIPP2-LF and GRIPP2-SF represent the first international evidence based, consensus informed guidance for reporting patient and public involvement in research. Both versions of GRIPP2 aim to improve the quality, transparency, and consistency of the international PPI evidence base, to ensure PPI practice is based on the best evidence. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on The BMJ and Research Involvement and Engagement journal websites.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40900-017-0062-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Involving young people in drug and alcohol research

“…While the evidence base for public involvement has expanded over the past decade, the quality of reporting is often inconsistent, which limits understanding of how it works, for whom, and why (Staniszewska et al, 2017). There is a need to collate, understand and disseminate more evidence on the nature, extent and impact of young people's involvement in research (Brady and Preston, 2017).…”

“…The study was also a case study in doctoral research by one author (L-MB) on how young people's involvement can be embedded in health services and research [1] (Brady, 2017). This paper draws on this doctoral research and the study report (Watson et al, 2017), and is informed by the GRIPP2 guidance on reporting patient and public involvement in research (Staniszewska et al, 2017).…”

Evaluating patient and public involvement in research

“…Progress has been made in defining and measuring high quality PPI in different contexts,17181920 how to report it,21 and how to assess its effect 1622. International collaborations are also helping to foster involvement science and methodological rigour 23…”

Person-centered clinical practice guidelines

“…have been sought". More detailed reporting could be introduced by using the research reporting guideline GRIPP-2 [42] or through the same questions asked of every British Medical Journal author (see Box 1). These options will take a small number of extra words and yet can add clear value and replicability to the guideline.…”