8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Children and young people’s contributions to public involvement and engagement activities in health-related research: A scoping review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          There has been an increasing interest in how children and young people can be involved in patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health research. However, relatively little robust evidence exists about which children and young people are reported as being involved or excluded from PPIE; the methods reported as being used to involve them in PPIE; and the reasons presented for their involvement in PPIE and what happens as a result. We performed a scoping review to identify, synthesise and present what is known from the literature about patient and public involvement and engagement activities with children and young people in health related research.

          Methods

          Relevant studies were identified by searches in Scopus, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane and PsychInfo databases, and hand checking of reference lists and grey literature. An adapted version of the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2) was used as a framework to collate the data. Two reviewers independently screened articles and decisions were consensually made.

          Main findings

          A total of 9805 references were identified (after duplicates were removed) through the literature search, of which 233 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Forty studies published between 2000 and 2019 were included in the review. The review reveals ambiguities in the quality of reporting of PPIE with children with clear reporting on demographics and health conditions. The review found that children and young people were commonly involved in multiple stages of research but there was also significant variation in the level at which children and young people were involved in PPIE. Evaluation of the impact of children and young people’s involvement in PPIE was limited.

          Conclusions

          Consultation, engagement and participation can all offer children and young people worthwhile ways of contributing to research with the level, purpose and impact of involvement determined by the children and young people themselves. However, careful decisions need to be made to ensure that it is suited to the context, setting and focus so that the desired PPIE impacts are achieved. Improvements should be made to the evaluation and reporting of PPIE in research. This will help researchers and funders to better understand the benefits, challenges and impact of PPIE with children and young people on health research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references75

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Scoping studies: advancing the methodology

          Background Scoping studies are an increasingly popular approach to reviewing health research evidence. In 2005, Arksey and O'Malley published the first methodological framework for conducting scoping studies. While this framework provides an excellent foundation for scoping study methodology, further clarifying and enhancing this framework will help support the consistency with which authors undertake and report scoping studies and may encourage researchers and clinicians to engage in this process. Discussion We build upon our experiences conducting three scoping studies using the Arksey and O'Malley methodology to propose recommendations that clarify and enhance each stage of the framework. Recommendations include: clarifying and linking the purpose and research question (stage one); balancing feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness of the scoping process (stage two); using an iterative team approach to selecting studies (stage three) and extracting data (stage four); incorporating a numerical summary and qualitative thematic analysis, reporting results, and considering the implications of study findings to policy, practice, or research (stage five); and incorporating consultation with stakeholders as a required knowledge translation component of scoping study methodology (stage six). Lastly, we propose additional considerations for scoping study methodology in order to support the advancement, application and relevance of scoping studies in health research. Summary Specific recommendations to clarify and enhance this methodology are outlined for each stage of the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Continued debate and development about scoping study methodology will help to maximize the usefulness and rigor of scoping study findings within healthcare research and practice.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

            Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research

              GRIPP2 (short form and long form) is the first international guidance for reporting of patient and public involvement in health and social care research. This paper describes the development of the GRIPP2 reporting checklists, which aim to improve the quality, transparency, and consistency of the international patient and public involvement (PPI) evidence base, to ensure that PPI practice is based on the best evidence
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: Validation
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                9 June 2021
                2021
                : 16
                : 6
                : e0252774
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Faculty of Health, Social Care and Medicine, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, United Kingdom
                [2 ] Faculty of Health, Public Health Institute, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, United Kingdom
                King’s College London, UNITED KINGDOM
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: No authors have competing interests

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9947-7375
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6584-1642
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5226-9878
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4185-2774
                Article
                PONE-D-20-30639
                10.1371/journal.pone.0252774
                8189547
                34106978
                0e6c3035-2624-4d3f-9938-6a385928e86a
                © 2021 Rouncefield-Swales et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 29 September 2020
                : 23 May 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 4, Pages: 25
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100010009, Edge Hill University;
                Award Recipient :
                BC and LB received internal funding for dissemination and impact activities. No funding has been used to pay for researcher salaries. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Age Groups
                Children
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Families
                Children
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Database and Informatics Methods
                Database Searching
                Science Policy
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Learning
                Human Learning
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Learning
                Human Learning
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Learning
                Human Learning
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Learning and Memory
                Learning
                Human Learning
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Systematic Reviews
                Social Sciences
                Sociology
                Human Families
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pediatrics
                Child Health
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Child Health
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content50

                Cited by24

                Most referenced authors861