![]() ![]() Moreover, much of the literature on the impact of PPI in research has not focussed specifically on randomised clinical trials (RCTs), although these are regarded as particularly likely to benefit from PPI. Problems with the conceptualisation and measurement of the impact of PPI have also been identified and few studies have accessed the perspectives of both PPI contributors and researchers. In this intensely moral and political arena, the rarity of such reports has raised concerns that the benefits of PPI have been selectively reported, and led to questions about the quality of the evidence-base for PPI in trials. Indications that PPI may have unfavourable impacts upon research or no impact at all have also appeared. There are indications that PPI can have favourable impacts upon every stage of the research process by helping to ensure that research funds are appropriately prioritised, that research evidence is relevant to patients, and by improving recruitment and retention rates and supporting the uptake of research in practice. However, PPI requires time and resource and it therefore warrants scrutiny and evaluation. Normative imperatives for PPI are sometimes viewed as sufficient justification regardless of any substantive impact PPI might have on research. PPI in research has been justified in two main ways: normatively on moral, ethical or political grounds consistent with slogans like “nothing about us without us”, and substantively in terms of the PPI potential to benefit research. This may discourage researchers from considering what PPI is really needed. Health research funding bodies strongly encourage researchers to implement PPI at every stage of the research process and specifically to include PPI contributors on study steering committees. This is to avoid implying either that the small number of individuals typically involved in research can represent the diversity of perspectives among patients and the public, or that the role of PPI contributors can always be described as a partnership. While several different terms have been used to refer to the patients and members of the public who take on these roles, most commonly “PPI representative” or “research partner”, here we use the term “PPI contributor”. The role of patients and the public therefore extends far beyond that of a research “subject” or participant. The idea behind PPI is that research is conducted with or by patients and members of the public, not solely on them. Recently PPI has also been introduced within the peer review process. Patient and public involvement (PPI) or stakeholder engagement in research refers to the practice of patients, members of the public and researchers working together to prioritise, plan, conduct and disseminate research. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |