GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in researchBMJ 2017; 358 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j3453 (Published 02 August 2017) Cite this as: BMJ 2017;358:j3453
- S Staniszewska, professorial fellow1,
- J Brett, senior research fellow2,
- I Simera, senior operations and development manager3,
- K Seers, professor of health research1,
- C Mockford, honorary research fellow4,
- S Goodlad, research development executive5,
- D G Altman, professor of statistics in medicine6,
- D Moher, senior scientist7,
- R Barber, honorary research fellow8,
- S Denegri, national director for patients and the public and chair of INVOLVE9,
- A Entwistle, UNTRAP member4,
- P Littlejohns, professor of public health10,
- C Morris, senior research fellow in child health11,
- R Suleman, UNTRAP member4,
- V Thomas, head of public involvement12,
- C Tysall, UNTRAP member4
- 1Warwick Research in Nursing, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
- 2Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK
- 3Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health and UK EQUATOR Centre, University of Oxford, UK
- 4Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK
- 5Coventry University, Coventry, UK
- 6Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, UK
- 7Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
- 8School of Health and Related Research, Section of Public Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
- 9National Institute for Health Research, UCL School of Life and Medical Sciences, London, UK
- 10Kings College London, London, UK
- 11University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK
- 12Public Involvement Programme, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, UK
- Correspondence to: S Staniszewska
Background While 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.
Objective To 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.
Methods The 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.
Results 143 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 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.
We thank everyone who participated in the Delphi survey and attended the consensus event. GRIPP2 was funded by the RCN Research Institute, Warwick Medical School, as part of its strategic focus on patient and public involvement. We thank Sally Crowe who facilitated the consensus workshop. SS is part funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West Midlands. PL is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South London at King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. This paper presents independent research and the views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.
Contributors: SS, JB, IS, KS, C Mockford, SG, C Morris, SD, RB, PL, VT, RS, AE, and CT made substantial contributions to conception and design. JB, SS, IS, DGA, and DM made substantial contributions to developing the protocol. SS, JB, and SG made substantial contributions to the acquisition of data, analysis, and interpretation of data. All authors have been involved in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content; given final approval of the version to be published.
Funding: The development of GRIPP2 was recognised as strategically important and funded by Royal College of Nursing Research Institute, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick.
Ethical approval: Ethical approval for the study was secured by the Centre for Educational and Industry/Development, Appraisal and Research (CEI) at the University of Warwick, which gained generic approval from the University Ethics Committee for all of its online surveys. The University Ethics Committee reviewed the rigorous survey procedures CEI had in place and granted generic ethical approval for its robust process and procedures. The GRIPP2 Delphi survey was assessed by CEI as being covered by the generic approval. Complete details of ethical procedure and methods are reported in the companion paper.17
Competing interests: SS is co-editor in chief of Research Involvement and Engagement, and so Richard Stephens handled this manuscript for Research Involvement and Engagement. No other author has declared a competing interest.
This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.