Article Text

Download PDFPDF

  1. O. Babatunde1,
  2. S. Dawson2,
  3. A. Adebajo3,
  4. K. Dziedzic1
  1. 1Keele University, Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Newcastle, United Kingdom
  2. 2Bristol University, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, United Kingdom
  3. 3Sheffield University, School of Health and Related Research, Sheffield, United Kingdom


Background Patient and Public Involvement (PPI), have supported high quality Rheumatology research which have now been successfully curated into widely endorsed evidence-based recommendations and guidelines. However, uptake and applicability of guidelines is less than optimal, significant variation exist in care, and health and socio-economic burdens attributed to rheumatic conditions continues to rise, suggesting an implementation challenge.

Objectives We conducted a rapid review to investigate the role of PPI in guideline implementation.

Methods A comprehensive search for relevant literature was undertaken (three databases - Medline, Embase, Cinahl, and two large repositories -WHO, G-IN). A priori eligibility criteria and systematic review-based methods were used to identify primary studies with explicit reference to PPI involvement in a rheumatic/musculoskeletal - MSK guideline implementation activity. Extracted data from included studies was interrogated for details regarding activities, contexts, outcomes, and impact of PPI in guidelines implementation and further discussed in review project meetings. Findings were brought together in a narrative synthesis. Recommendations for future research and practice, and a conceptual framework for PPI in Rheumatic and MSK guidelines implementation were co-developed with a public contributor.

Results Ten papers were included, only 1 from the global south. A prevalence of consultative PPI activities in guidelines dissemination (e.g., language translations, patient versions) was found. Few studies explicitly report high-level PPI engagement in relation to care pathway adjustments, care commissioning, institutional operations and policy with a view to MSK guideline implementation. Training, development, and practice of PPI in MSK guideline implementations were not evidenced to have spread much beyond Europe and are also not well reported in literature nor rightly accrued as PPI activities in guideline implementation. The alliance framework (Figure 1) highlighting an iterative process of “creative thinking/co-production” and “strategic doing” helps to conceptualise PPI in MSK guideline implementation. The framework guides knowledge translation from guidelines to real world practice and aims to drive quality improvement for MSK care with patients, for patients, across and within care settings globally.

Figure 1.

The Alliance framework for conceptualising Patient and Public Involvement in Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal guidelines implementation.

Conclusion Despite success of PPI in rheumatology/MSK research, oversight or ineffective PPI in guideline implementation may hamper translation of novel advances in MSK care into real world practice and patient benefit. The Alliance framework prioritises effective PPI in MSK guideline implementation design, delivery, and evaluation, ideally applied in parallel with the development of evidence-based guidance recommendations. It highlights continuous application of innovative thinking, dynamic, and impactful collaborations for bridging the evidence-practice gap and improving quality of care for MSK patients globally through novel partnerships.

Disclosure of Interests None declared

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.