bioRxivScientific Communication & Education
Involving patients and publics in medical and health care research studies: an exploratory survey on participant recruiting and representativeness from the perspective of study authors
Abstract
Research on patient and public involvement so far concentrates on defining involvement, describing involvement methods, and analyzing involvement practice in various individual research disciplines. There is little empirical data on the process of and aims for selecting participants, and to what extend lay people involved in research can and should be representative of the population at large. To explore practices and perceptions on these issues and on future PPI conduct more generally, we sent an electronic survey to authors who published involvement activities as part of their studies in medical and social science journals. We identified such authors with a systematic search of five databases and applied descriptive statistics for analysis. Of those who returned the survey (n=127 of 315; 40%), most had previously conducted involvement activities (73%). 45% reported more than one type of involvement, e.g. consultation and deliberation and participation (14%) and to have recruited more than one type of participant for their PPI activity (56%), e.g. lay publics and expert publics (33% of 71). Representativeness was seen by most respondents as a crucial objective when recruiting participants, while less than half found the recruitment of suitable participants very easy (9%) or rather easy (34%). Many respondents found it generally difficult (52%) or very difficult (17%) to achieve good representativeness. They identified significant respective challenges and desired more guidance on various aspects of planning and conducting PPI (56%). 55% thought that the concept of \"involvement\" should be changed or improved. We conclude that participant recruitment and representativeness are controversial in current PPI practice given the manifold challenges mentioned by the survey respondents. Our findings may inform further research particularly regarding- the potentially large number of - unpublished PPI activities.
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Facilitating Patient and Public Involvement in basic and preclinical health research.
J. Maccarthy, S. Guerin, … E. Dorris·bioRxiv·Sep 25, 2018
- From intent to implementation: Factors affecting public involvement in life science research
J. A. Burns, K. Korzec, E. R. Dorris·bioRxiv·Aug 28, 2019
- Factors Influencing Precision Medicine Knowledge and Attitudes
Rohini Chakravarthy, Sarah Stallings, … Consuelo Hopkins Wilkins·PLoS ONEPeer-reviewed·Nov 11, 2020
- A Pilot Survey of Authors' Experiences with Poor Peer Review Practices
K. B. McCloskey, J. F. Merz·bioRxiv·Dec 20, 2022
- Biomedical researchers perspectives on the reproducibility of research: a cross-sectional international survey
K. D. Cobey, S. Ebrahimzadeh, … D. Moher·bioRxiv·Sep 18, 2023
- The recognition and expectations of ex-inpatients of mental health services: A web-based questionnaire survey in Japan.
Akihiro Shiina, Yasutaka Ojio, … Chiyo Fujii·PLoS ONEPeer-reviewed·Oct 15, 2018