Patient and public involvement in HIV research: a mapping review and development of an online evidence map

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Increasing evidence indicates the benefits of patient and public involvement (PPI) in medical research, and PPI is increasingly expected by funders and publishers. We conducted a mapping review of studies reporting examples of PPI implementation in HIV research, and developed an online evidence map to guide HIV researchers. Methods We systematically searched Medline and Embase up until 18 August 2024, including search terms with variations for PPI and HIV. We extracted information from identified studies in duplicate and analysed the data descriptively and qualitatively to describe types of PPI models and reported benefits, challenges, and mitigation strategies. This study was co‐initiated and co‐led by people living with HIV. Results We identified 17 studies reporting PPI in HIV research between 1992 and August 2024. Most PPI examples informed prospective clinical studies, but also qualitative research, questionnaire development, research priority setting and surveys. Ten studies described the number and characteristics of PPI members involved. We observed four PPI models, from a model that solely engaged PPI members for a specific task to a model whereby PPI representatives were integrated into the study team with decision‐making authority. Benefits reported included wider dissemination of research results, better understanding of research material and results, and higher levels of trust and learning between researcher and communities. The most commonly reported challenges were the lack of specific resources for PPI, differing levels of knowledge and expertise, concern about HIV status disclosure, and lack of diversity of the PPI team. Uneven power dynamics, tensions, and differing expectations between stake‐holder groups were also frequently noted. Conclusions This mapping review summarizes published examples of PPI in HIV research for various phases of research. There is a clear need to strengthen the reporting on PPI processes in HIV research, for example by following the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) 2 guidelines, and developing guidance on its hands‐on implementation. We embedded PPI from study inception onwards, which potentially pre‐empted some of the challenges reported in the reviewed examples. The resulting online evidence map is a starting point to guide researchers on integrating PPI into their own research.

Keywords

• evidence map
• good participatory practice
• HIV/AIDS
• mapping review
• patient and public involvement
• patient engagement