↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Research Involvement and Engagement, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#12 of 154)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
91 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
Title
GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research
Published in
Research Involvement and Engagement, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40900-017-0062-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. Staniszewska, J. Brett, I. Simera, K. Seers, C. Mockford, S. Goodlad, D. G. Altman, D. Moher, R. Barber, S. Denegri, A. Entwistle, P. Littlejohns, C. Morris, R. Suleman, V. Thomas, C. Tysall

Abstract

While the patient and public involvement (PPI) evidence base has expanded over the past decade, the quality of reporting within papers is often inconsistent, limiting our understanding of how it works, in what context, for whom, and why. To develop international consensus on the key items to report to enhance the quality, transparency, and consistency of the PPI evidence base. To collaboratively involve patients as research partners at all stages in the development of GRIPP2. The EQUATOR method for developing reporting guidelines was used. The original GRIPP (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public) checklist was revised, based on updated systematic review evidence. A three round Delphi survey was used to develop consensus on items to be included in the guideline. A subsequent face-to-face meeting produced agreement on items not reaching consensus during the Delphi process. One hundred forty-three participants agreed to participate in round one, with an 86% (123/143) response for round two and a 78% (112/143) response for round three. The Delphi survey identified the need for long form (LF) and short form (SF) versions. GRIPP2-LF includes 34 items on aims, definitions, concepts and theory, methods, stages and nature of involvement, context, capture or measurement of impact, outcomes, economic assessment, and reflections and is suitable for studies where the main focus is PPI. GRIPP2-SF includes five items on aims, methods, results, outcomes, and critical perspective and is suitable for studies where PPI is a secondary focus. GRIPP2-LF and GRIPP2-SF represent the first international evidence based, consensus informed guidance for reporting patient and public involvement in research. Both versions of GRIPP2 aim to improve the quality, transparency, and consistency of the international PPI evidence base, to ensure PPI practice is based on the best evidence. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on The BMJ and Research Involvement and Engagement journal websites.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 91 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 23%
Researcher 18 21%
Student > Master 8 9%
Other 7 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 7%
Other 18 21%
Unknown 9 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 30%
Social Sciences 13 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 13%
Psychology 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 15 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 63. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 March 2019.
All research outputs
#271,977
of 13,532,333 outputs
Outputs from Research Involvement and Engagement
#12
of 154 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,431
of 267,423 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Involvement and Engagement
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,532,333 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 154 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,423 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them