Patient and public involvement in research published in the British Journal of Occupational Therapy 2015-2021: A scoping review.
Ruth Williamson, Helen Atkin, Oliver Wood and 2 others
PMID 40337092WHAT IT FOUND
Most occupational therapy research published in this journal between 2015 and 2021 did not report involving patients or the public.
Of the few that did, descriptions were often unclear, making it hard to judge the quality or impact of that involvement.
Key findings
01Only 6% of research articles published in the journal during the review period reported public involvement.
02The most common way public members were involved was as steering group members (40%), followed by developing or piloting study materials (40%).
03Reporting was inconsistent, with many studies failing to clearly state the aim of involvement or critically reflect on the process.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The review relied on authors' published reports; if involvement occurred but was not described, it was missed. The distinction between 'public involvement' and 'research participation' was sometimes blurred in the source texts, making categorization difficult. The study covers a specific period (2015-2021) before the journal introduced mandatory reporting guidelines, so current practice may differ. Only 30% of studies were screened in duplicate, which could affect the reliability of the selection process.
Declared interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest and no financial support for the research.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that low reporting equals low actual involvement. The review found that many studies did not describe their involvement activities, so it is unclear whether the public was not involved or simply not reported as being involved. The findings reflect a reporting gap, not necessarily a complete absence of partnership in practice.