{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Patient and public involvement in systematic reviews: frequency, determinants, stages, barriers, and dissemination.
{Author}: Zhou Q;He H;Li Q;Zhao J;Wang L;Luo Z;Wang X;Chen Y;
{Journal}: J Clin Epidemiol
{Volume}: 170
{Issue}: 0
{Year}: 2024 Jun 10
{Factor}: 7.407
{DOI}: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111356
{Abstract}: <B>OBJECTIVE: </B>To investigate the frequency, determinants, stages, and barriers of patient and public involvement (PPI) in systematic reviews and to explore its association with the dissemination of reviews.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>We examined systematic reviews that required the inclusion of a PPI declaration, published in The BMJ between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2022. Multivariable analysis was used to assess the association between PPI and key variables. We investigated the association between PPI and the dissemination of reviews using Altmetric scores, citations, and full-text views.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>A total of 217 systematic reviews were included, of which 56 (25.8%, 95% CI 20.0%-31.6%) included PPI, with a steady increase from 5.9% (1/17) in 2015 to 44.4% (4/35) in 2022. Of the 217 systematic reviews, 160 (73.7%) involved methodologists as co-authors. Factors significantly associated with a higher proportion of PPI included the publication year after 2019 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.46, 95% CI 1.26-4.83), the involvement of methodologist (aOR 3.08; 95% CI 1.27-7.47), and being led by researchers from high-income countries (aOR 5.47; 95% CI 1.23-24.30). Reviews that included PPI had higher Altmetric scores per month (6.6 vs 3.4, P = .002) and more monthly full-text (1048.6 vs 636.5, P < .001) and PDF (217.7 vs 129.0, P < .001) views than reviews without PPI. However, there was no difference in the monthly citations (2.2 vs 2.0, P = .365) between reviews with and without PPI.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>The proportion of systematic reviews reporting PPI in The BMJ has increased over time, possibly due to journal policies, but it still remains at a low level. Reviews led by researchers from high-income countries or involving methodologists are associated with a higher frequency of PPI within The BMJ. Furthermore, reviews incorporating PPI within The BMJ have a higher potential for broad dissemination.