» Articles » PMID: 34766211

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Prisons: the Involvement of People Living in Prison in the Research Process - a Systematic Scoping Review

Overview
Journal Health Justice
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2021 Nov 12
PMID 34766211
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in health and social care research is increasingly prevalent and is promoted in policy as a means of improving the validity of research. This also applies to people living in prison and using social care services. Whilst evidence for the effectiveness of PPI was limited and reviews of its application in prisons were not found, the infancy of the evidence base and moral and ethical reasons for involvement mean that PPI continues to be advocated in the community and in prisons.

Objectives: To conduct a review of the literature regarding the involvement of people or persons living in prison (PLiP) in health and social care research focused on: (i) aims; (ii) types of involvement; (iii) evaluations and findings; (iv) barriers and solutions; and (v) feasibility of undertaking a systematic review.

Methods: A systematic scoping review was undertaken following Arksey and O'Malley's (International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8: 19-32, 2005) five-stage framework. A comprehensive search was conducted involving ten electronic databases up until December 2020 using patient involvement and context related search terms. A review-specific spreadsheet was created following the PICO formula, and a narrative synthesis approach was taken to answer the research questions. PRISMA guidelines were followed in reporting.

Results: 39 papers were selected for inclusion in the review. The majority of these took a 'participatory' approach to prisoner involvement, which occurred at most stages during the research process except for more 'higher' level research operations (funding applications and project management), and only one study was led by PLiPs. Few studies involved an evaluation of the involvement of PLiP, and this was mostly PLiP or researcher reflections without formal or independent analysis, and largely reported a positive impact. Barriers to the involvement of PLiP coalesced around power differences and prison bureaucracy.

Conclusion: Given the very high risk of bias arising from the available 'evaluations', it was not possible to derive firm conclusions about the effectiveness of PLiP involvement in the research process. In addition, given the state of the evidence base, it was felt that a systematic review would not be feasible until more evaluations were undertaken using a range of methodologies to develop the field further.

Citing Articles

Strategies for involving patients and the public in scaling initiatives in health and social services: A scoping review.

de Carvalho Coroa R, Ben Charif A, Robitaille V, Mochcovitch D, Abdoulaye Samri M, Akpo T Health Expect. 2024; 27(3):e14086.

PMID: 38837509 PMC: 11150745. DOI: 10.1111/hex.14086.

References
1.
Townsend D . Prisoners with HIV/AIDS: a participatory learning and action initiative in Malaysia. Trop Doct. 2001; 31(1):8-10. DOI: 10.1177/004947550103100103. View

2.
Biggane A, Olsen M, Williamson P . PPI in research: a reflection from early stage researchers. Res Involv Engagem. 2019; 5:35. PMC: 6865031. DOI: 10.1186/s40900-019-0170-2. View

3.
Ocloo J, Matthews R . From tokenism to empowerment: progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016; 25(8):626-32. PMC: 4975844. DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004839. View

4.
Munn Z, Peters M, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E . Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018; 18(1):143. PMC: 6245623. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x. View

5.
Lander J, Langhof H, Dierks M . Involving patients and the public in medical and health care research studies: An exploratory survey on participant recruiting and representativeness from the perspective of study authors. PLoS One. 2019; 14(1):e0204187. PMC: 6322864. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204187. View