A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF
PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT (PPI) IN HEALTHCARE SERVICES
Developing an evidence base
Carole Mockford, Sandy Herron-Marx, Frances Griffiths and Sophie Staniszewska
National Centre for Involvement, University of Warwick
1. BACKGROUND
The concept of involving patients, carers and the public in the design and development of healthcare services has been interpreted and reported in many different ways over several years. In order to
build on existing knowledge and experience, a firm evidence base is required and currently does not exist. This would illustrate what has been done, how it was carried out and why, what worked and
what did not, and most importantly what impact this has made to services and the service user. In light of recent reports (Boote et al 2002; Oliver et al 2008; Crawford et al 2002) it has been noticed that
there are some major limitations in what has been reported and how it has been presented. There has been, in particular, a lack of clarity on how PPI is interpreted and assessed, and a deficiency in
reporting the real impact PPI is having. This poster describes the protocol behind this study.
2. REVIEW QUESTIONS
4. METHOD
5. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
How is patient and public involvement (PPI)
defined, conceptualised, and measured?
Phase 1 – Setting up
Results of the systematic review will report on:
the study selection, the data extracted, measurements
used, economic costs and study quality assessment.
What is the impact of PPI on NHS healthcare services
and development?
On what level do the changes take place - for the service
user, community, NHS staff, and NHS organisation?
3. AIMS
 To identify the range of ways in which PPI has been
defined.
 To identify any theoretical and conceptual
underpinnings for the concept of PPI.
 To assess the operationalisation of PPI.
 To assess the reliability and validity of any
measurement used.
 To identify how the impact of PPI has been described or
measured, and reported, for individuals, communities,
NHS staff and NHS organisation.
 To document any economic analysis or the costs of PPI.
For further information contact: carole.mockford@warwick.ac.uk
To establish the nature, breadth and depth of the relevant evidence base.
To set up an initial search strategy and protocol.
To organise the review team to include:
• an information specialist;
• an independent reviewer;
• an advisory group with –
− 2 lay members from the People Bank*;
− academic, and non academic members expert in systematic
reviews and/or PPI.
Phase 2 – Literature search
Both published and unpublished, quantitative and qualitative
material will be collected.
A comprehensive literature search of relevant online databases will be
made e.g. Medline, Cinahl, Embase.
Data will be extracted from material satisfying the agreed criteria.
A quality assessment of studies will be kept.
A critical analysis of the data will be conducted.
Regular meetings with the advisory group will take place.
Phase 3 – Updating and dissemination
The review will be updated.
Findings from the study will be disseminated in a variety of ways
including a main report, an executive summary, peer-reviewed journal
publications and conference presentations.
*The People Bank is organised through the National Centre for Involvement (www.nationalcentreforinvolvement.org).
A data synthesis will take place and a critical
analysis made of the findings.
6. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
This will examine:
• The way PPI has been defined, conceptualised and
measured.
• The impact PPI has had on UK healthcare services.
• The impact on the service user, the community,
NHS staff and the NHS organisation.
It will explore how evidence is best reported
in order to contribute to a developing evidence base.
REFERENCES
Boote J., Telford R. and Cooper C. (2002). Consumer Involvement in Health Research: a Review and
Research Agenda. Health Policy 61: 213-236.
Crawford M., Rutter D., Manley C., Weaver T., Bhui K., Fulop N. and Tyrer P. (2002). Systematic review
of involving patients in the planning and development of health care. BMJ 325: 1263-1268.
Oliver S., Rees R., Clarke-Jones L., Milne R., Oakley A., Gabbay J., Stein K., Buchanan P., Gyte G.
(2008). A multidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services
research. Health Expectations 11: 72-84.