The review revealed the most common stage for PPI was in research planning , and the most common level of involvement was collaboration .
Most studies did not provide evidence of effectiveness or elaborate on the impact of PPI , and they tended to report impact from the research er 's perspective .
Where impact was mentioned , this generally related to increased relevance to the community , empowerment of participants and alterations in study design .
OBJECTIVES Patient and public involvement ( PPI ) is argued to lead to higher quality health research , which is more relatable to and helps empower the public .
We synthesis ed the evidence to look for examples of PPI in health research in low/middle-income countries ( LMICs ) , looking at levels of involvement and impact .
Additionally , we considered the impact of who was undertaking the research on the level of involvement and reported impact .
Using Participatory Mapping to Inform a Community-Randomized Trial of HIV Counseling and Testing
Participatory mapping and transect walks were used to inform the research and intervention design and to begin building community relations in preparation for Project Accept , a community-r and omized trial sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health . Project Accept is being conducted at five sites in four countries : Thail and , Zimbabwe , South Africa , and Tanzania . Results from the mapping exercises informed decisions such as defining community boundaries and identifying appropriate criteria for matching community pairs for the trial as well as where to situate the services . The mapping also informed intervention-related decisions such as where to situate the services . The participatory methods enabled research ers at each site to develop an underst and ing of the communities that could not have been derived from existing data or data collected through st and ard data collection techniques . Furthermore , the methods lay the foundation for collaborative community research partnerships
The review revealed the most common stage for PPI was in research planning , and the most common level of involvement was collaboration .
Most studies did not provide evidence of effectiveness or elaborate on the impact of PPI , and they tended to report impact from the research er 's perspective .
Where impact was mentioned , this generally related to increased relevance to the community , empowerment of participants and alterations in study design .
OBJECTIVES Patient and public involvement ( PPI ) is argued to lead to higher quality health research , which is more relatable to and helps empower the public .
We synthesis ed the evidence to look for examples of PPI in health research in low/middle-income countries ( LMICs ) , looking at levels of involvement and impact .
Additionally , we considered the impact of who was undertaking the research on the level of involvement and reported impact .