Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 12, 2026
Involving Individuals with Developmental Language Disorder and Their Parents/Carers in Research Priority Setting
Published on: June 6, 2020
Patient and public involvement in pressure ulcer research: a scoping review
Hannah Wilson1, Aglecia Moda Vitoriano Budri1, Pinar Avsar2
1Skin Wounds and Trauma Research Centre, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ireland; School of Nursing and Midwifery, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ireland; Patient, Person, and Professional Involvement Advisory Panel, Skin Wounds and Trauma Research Centre, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ireland.
Aim:
This scoping review examined how patient and public involvement (PPI) is incorporated in pressure ulcer (PU) research. It identified the research stages where PPI occurs, the methods used to support it, the terminology applied, and its reported impact on research quality, practice, organisations, patients, and society.
Methods:
Nine electronic databases were searched from inception to March 2025. Studies with an objective to prevent or treat PUs, that actively involved people with lived experience of PUs as PPI contributors during the research lifecycle were included. Articles were independently screened and pre-defined data were extracted by two authors. Results were synthesised using the Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice and Research recommendations framework. Two PPI contributors collaborated across each stage of this review.
Results:
Twenty studies were included, with a median of 6.5 (1-48) PPI contributors, involved in a median of 2.5 (1-6) research stages. Participatory methods ranged from structured frameworks to flexible, adaptive engagement strategies (i.e., workshops/consultations). Impact of PPI was reported across 80% (n = 16) of studies, predominately in the research quality domain. Limited use of the Guidance for Reporting of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2) checklist was observed (5%, n = 1). Multiple terms were used to describe PPI.
Conclusion:
While PPI in PU research is growing, reporting and integration vary widely. GRIPP2 checklists can enhance transparency. Studies should aim to involve contributors across multiple stages, targeting when and how PPI adds most value. A standardised terminology, agreed with PPI contributors, could enhance clarity and equity, reflecting their level of partnership and expertise.
