You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Systematic review
Patient and public involvement in emergency care research: a scoping review of the literature
  1. Rachel Muir1,2,3,
  2. Joan Carlini2,4,5,
  3. Julia Crilly1,2,3,
  4. Jamie Ranse1,2,3
  1. 1 School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
  2. 2 Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
  3. 3 Department of Emergency Medicine, Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
  4. 4 Consumer Advisory Group, Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
  5. 5 Department of Marketing, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Rachel Muir, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia; rachel.muir{at}griffith.edu.au

Abstract

Background Establishing the benefits of patient and public involvement (PPI) in emergency care research is important to improve the quality and relevance of research. Little is known about the extent of PPI in emergency care research, its methodological and reporting quality. This scoping review aimed to establish the extent of PPI in emergency care research, identify PPI strategies and processes and assess the quality of reporting on PPI in emergency care research.

Methods Keyword searches of five databases (OVID MEDLINE, Elsevier EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL, PsychInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials); hand searches of 12 specialist journals and citation searches of the included journal articles were performed. A patient representative contributed to research design and co-authored this review.

Results A total of 28 studies reporting PPI from the USA, Canada, UK, Australia and Ghana were included. The quality of reporting was variable, with only seven studies satisfying all Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public short form reporting criteria. None of the included studies adequately described all the key aspects of reporting the impact of PPI.

Conclusion Relatively few emergency care studies comprehensively describe PPI. Opportunity exists to improve the consistency and quality of reporting of PPI in emergency care research. Further research is required to better understand the specific challenges for implementing PPI in emergency care research, and to determine whether emergency care researchers have adequate resources, education and funding to undertake and report involvement.

  • emergency department
  • research
  • education
  • systematic review

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2022-212514

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Handling editor Edward Carlton

    • Contributors Concept and design: RM, JR. Study screening and selection: RM, JR. Analysis and interpretation of data: RM, JR, JCa, JCr Drafting of the manuscript: RM. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: RM, JR, JCa, JCr. All authors contributed, read and approved the final manuscript. RM is responsible for all aspects of the work.

    • Funding We acknowledge seed funding received from the School of Nursing and Midwifery at Griffith University, which contributed to research assistance for title and abstract screening for this review.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement A patient representative was involved in the design, conduct, reporting, and dissemination plans for this research. Refer to the 'Methods' section and supplementary table 4 for further details.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.