Questions to Consider When Reviewing Research Documents

When reviewing research proposals and study plans from a Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) perspective, it’s important to consider whether the research is relevant, valuable, and inclusive. Below are key questions to guide your evaluation.

Is the Research Important and Relevant to Patients and the Public?

Aortic dissection research should focus on real patient needs and have the potential to make a meaningful impact. Ask yourself:

🤔 Does this research address an important issue for patients, carers, or families?

🤔 Have patients or the public been involved in identifying and shaping the research question?

🤔 Could the findings improve patient experiences, treatment options, or health outcomes?

🤔 Will it help reduce health inequalities, for example, by focusing on underserved communities or improving early diagnosis?

If the study doesn’t seem relevant to those affected by aortic dissection, consider suggesting ways it could be more patient-centred.

Is the Research Worth Doing?

Not all research is equally valuable—some studies may be too narrow in focus or fail to address real-world challenges. Think about:

🤔 Does this research answer an urgent question in aortic dissection care or treatment?

🤔 Will the findings lead to tangible improvements, or is there a risk they won’t be widely applied?

🤔 Is this research unique, or is it duplicating previous studies without adding new insights?

A strong research project should have clear goals that directly benefit patients, clinicians, or healthcare decision-makers.

Does the Research Provide Value for Money?

As a PPI reviewer, you don’t need to assess every detail of the budget, but you can consider:

🤔 Does this seem like a reasonable investment of public or charity funds?

🤔 Could the study’s findings help reduce long-term healthcare costs by improving treatment strategies or preventing complications?

🤔 Is it clear who will benefit from this research—patients, healthcare professionals, or policymakers?

If the costs seem excessive compared to the potential impact, you may wish to raise concerns or suggest improvements.

Are the Right Outcomes Being Measured?

Outcomes are the key results researchers measure to determine if a treatment, service, or intervention is effective. However, what clinicians consider important may not always align with what matters most to patients.

Ask yourself:

🤔 Have patients been involved in deciding which outcomes to measure?

🤔 Do the chosen outcomes reflect real patient concerns? (For example, in aortic dissection research, measuring survival rates is important, but so is assessing long-term quality of life, pain management, or emotional recovery.)

🤔 Will the findings be useful in guiding patient care and decision-making?

If outcomes seem too clinically focused and disconnected from patient experiences, consider suggesting patient-centred measures.

Does the Research Team Have the Right Skills and Experience?

A good research team should include a mix of clinical, scientific, and patient expertise. Consider:

🤔 Does the team have experience in aortic disease research?

🤔 Have they worked with patient groups before?

🤔 Does the study include collaboration with healthcare providers or charities that understand aortic dissection?

If the team lacks diversity or expertise in key areas, you might suggest including additional specialists or patient representatives.

Is Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) Meaningful?

Many research proposals mention PPI, but not all use it effectively. Consider:

🤔 Is PPI embedded throughout the study, or just added as an afterthought?

🤔 Are patients involved in shaping the research, reviewing materials, and helping to share results?

🤔 Are there clear plans for how public contributors will be supported and involved?

🤔 If there is no PPI, has the research team provided a good reason why?

If PPI seems weak or underdeveloped, you can suggest ways to make it stronger.

Is There a Budget for PPI?

PPI activities require time, resources, and financial support. Consider:

🤔 Has funding been allocated for PPI, or is it missing from the budget?

🤔 Is the amount allocated realistic for meaningful involvement?

🤔 If the PPI budget is very low (less than 2% of total costs), will it be enough to support engagement activities?

Without proper funding, even well-planned PPI strategies may not be carried out effectively.

Are Arrangements for Participants Fair and Inclusive?

If the study involves patient participation, ask:

🤔 Are the requirements realistic for those affected by aortic dissection? (e.g. Are hospital visits frequent or difficult to attend?)

🤔 Will the study be accessible to a diverse range of participants?

🤔 Are there adequate support measures in place, such as travel reimbursement or emotional support?

Research should avoid placing unnecessary burdens on participants and should actively seek diverse perspectives.

Why Your Feedback Matters

As a PPI reviewer, your role is to ensure research is truly patient-focused. Your questions and feedback help researchers improve study design, prioritise meaningful outcomes, and make their work more inclusive and impactful.

By thinking critically about these aspects, you can help shape better research that leads to real improvements in aortic dissection care and treatment.