4.8 Review

Considerations for patient and public involvement and engagement in health research

Journal

NATURE MEDICINE
Volume 29, Issue 8, Pages 1922-1929

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41591-023-02445-x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The authors present a checklist for patient and public involvement and engagement in future research based on the lessons learned from the TLC study. Patient and public involvement can offer valuable insights into the experiences of those affected by a disease. Inclusive collaboration between patients, the public, and researchers can lead to productive relationships and address patient needs in health research.
The authors generate a checklist of key considerations to guide patient and public involvement and engagement in future research, informed by lessons from the TLC study, which evaluated therapies for long COVID. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) can provide valuable insights into the experiences of those living with and affected by a disease or health condition. Inclusive collaboration between patients, the public and researchers can lead to productive relationships, ensuring that health research addresses patient needs. Guidelines are available to support effective PPIE; however, evaluation of the impact of PPIE strategies in health research is limited. In this Review, we evaluate the impact of PPIE in the 'Therapies for Long COVID in non-hospitalised individuals' (TLC) Study, using a combination of group discussions and interviews with patient partners and researchers. We identify areas of good practice and reflect on areas for improvement. Using these insights and the results of a survey, we synthesize two checklists of considerations for PPIE, and we propose that research teams use these checklists to optimize the impact of PPIE for both patients and researchers in future studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available