No Cover Image

Journal article 23324 views 109 downloads

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in prisons: the involvement of people living in prison in the research process – a systematic scoping review

Samantha Treacy Orcid Logo, Steven Martin, Nelum Samarutilake, Tine Van Bortel

Health & Justice, Volume: 9, Issue: 1, Start page: 30

Swansea University Author: Samantha Treacy Orcid Logo

  • 40352_2021_Article_154.pdf

    PDF | Version of Record

    © The Author(s). 2021 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

    Download (1.26MB)

Check full text

DOI (Published version): 10.1186/s40352-021-00154-6

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...

Full description

Published in: Health & Justice
ISSN: 2194-7899
Published: Springer Science and Business Media LLC 2021
Online Access: Check full text

URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa58660
first_indexed 2021-11-15T10:53:32Z
last_indexed 2021-12-01T04:18:39Z
id cronfa58660
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2021-11-30T16:41:29.2642032</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>58660</id><entry>2021-11-15</entry><title>Patient and public involvement (PPI) in prisons: the involvement of people living in prison in the research process &#x2013; a systematic scoping review</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>53962bf646ea480d4309ff5b0405aba8</sid><ORCID>0000-0002-9755-7686</ORCID><firstname>Samantha</firstname><surname>Treacy</surname><name>Samantha Treacy</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2021-11-15</date><deptcode>PSYS</deptcode><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&#x2019;Malley&#x2019;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 &#x2018;participatory&#x2019; approach to prisoner involvement, which occurred at most stages during the research process except for more &#x2018;higher&#x2019; 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 &#x2018;evaluations&#x2019;, 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.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>Health &amp; Justice</journal><volume>9</volume><journalNumber>1</journalNumber><paginationStart>30</paginationStart><paginationEnd/><publisher>Springer Science and Business Media LLC</publisher><placeOfPublication/><isbnPrint/><isbnElectronic/><issnPrint/><issnElectronic>2194-7899</issnElectronic><keywords>Patient and public involvement in research, Engagement in research, Participatory research, Prisonresearch, People living in prison, People formerly living in prison, Prisoners, Ex-prisoners, Scoping review</keywords><publishedDay>11</publishedDay><publishedMonth>11</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2021</publishedYear><publishedDate>2021-11-11</publishedDate><doi>10.1186/s40352-021-00154-6</doi><url/><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Psychology School</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>PSYS</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm/><funders>This is a summary of research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration East of England. Additional sponsorship, as part of the wider prison care programme, was also received from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust (CPFT).</funders><lastEdited>2021-11-30T16:41:29.2642032</lastEdited><Created>2021-11-15T10:51:21.6667739</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences</level><level id="2">Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Samantha</firstname><surname>Treacy</surname><orcid>0000-0002-9755-7686</orcid><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>Steven</firstname><surname>Martin</surname><order>2</order></author><author><firstname>Nelum</firstname><surname>Samarutilake</surname><order>3</order></author><author><firstname>Tine Van</firstname><surname>Bortel</surname><order>4</order></author></authors><documents><document><filename>58660__21529__f83b6bf39c9d4ee7aa73c1ad0c21c12c.pdf</filename><originalFilename>40352_2021_Article_154.pdf</originalFilename><uploaded>2021-11-15T10:51:21.6667200</uploaded><type>Output</type><contentLength>1323070</contentLength><contentType>application/pdf</contentType><version>Version of Record</version><cronfaStatus>true</cronfaStatus><documentNotes>&#xA9; The Author(s). 2021 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</documentNotes><copyrightCorrect>true</copyrightCorrect><language>eng</language><licence>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</licence></document></documents><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2021-11-30T16:41:29.2642032 v2 58660 2021-11-15 Patient and public involvement (PPI) in prisons: the involvement of people living in prison in the research process – a systematic scoping review 53962bf646ea480d4309ff5b0405aba8 0000-0002-9755-7686 Samantha Treacy Samantha Treacy true false 2021-11-15 PSYS 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. Journal Article Health & Justice 9 1 30 Springer Science and Business Media LLC 2194-7899 Patient and public involvement in research, Engagement in research, Participatory research, Prisonresearch, People living in prison, People formerly living in prison, Prisoners, Ex-prisoners, Scoping review 11 11 2021 2021-11-11 10.1186/s40352-021-00154-6 COLLEGE NANME Psychology School COLLEGE CODE PSYS Swansea University This is a summary of research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration East of England. Additional sponsorship, as part of the wider prison care programme, was also received from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust (CPFT). 2021-11-30T16:41:29.2642032 2021-11-15T10:51:21.6667739 Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law Samantha Treacy 0000-0002-9755-7686 1 Steven Martin 2 Nelum Samarutilake 3 Tine Van Bortel 4 58660__21529__f83b6bf39c9d4ee7aa73c1ad0c21c12c.pdf 40352_2021_Article_154.pdf 2021-11-15T10:51:21.6667200 Output 1323070 application/pdf Version of Record true © The Author(s). 2021 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License true eng http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
title Patient and public involvement (PPI) in prisons: the involvement of people living in prison in the research process – a systematic scoping review
spellingShingle Patient and public involvement (PPI) in prisons: the involvement of people living in prison in the research process – a systematic scoping review
Samantha Treacy
title_short Patient and public involvement (PPI) in prisons: the involvement of people living in prison in the research process – a systematic scoping review
title_full Patient and public involvement (PPI) in prisons: the involvement of people living in prison in the research process – a systematic scoping review
title_fullStr Patient and public involvement (PPI) in prisons: the involvement of people living in prison in the research process – a systematic scoping review
title_full_unstemmed Patient and public involvement (PPI) in prisons: the involvement of people living in prison in the research process – a systematic scoping review
title_sort Patient and public involvement (PPI) in prisons: the involvement of people living in prison in the research process – a systematic scoping review
author_id_str_mv 53962bf646ea480d4309ff5b0405aba8
author_id_fullname_str_mv 53962bf646ea480d4309ff5b0405aba8_***_Samantha Treacy
author Samantha Treacy
author2 Samantha Treacy
Steven Martin
Nelum Samarutilake
Tine Van Bortel
format Journal article
container_title Health & Justice
container_volume 9
container_issue 1
container_start_page 30
publishDate 2021
institution Swansea University
issn 2194-7899
doi_str_mv 10.1186/s40352-021-00154-6
publisher Springer Science and Business Media LLC
college_str Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
department_str Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences{{{_:::_}}}Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law
document_store_str 1
active_str 0
description 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.
published_date 2021-11-11T14:10:45Z
_version_ 1821324341176958976
score 11.048042

Similar Items