Objectives: The aim of this study, in the context of disinvestment related health technology assessment, is to examine whether analysis of Web 2.0—commercial media output, blogs, and discussion forums—can provide an understanding of media framing, community perspectives, and the sociopolitical aspects of an entrenched technology.

Methods: Thematic analysis of relevant data from fifty-nine media articles, thirty-nine discussion forums, thirteen blogs, and three Facebook pages relating to our case study: public funding for assisted reproductive technology services. Mainstream media and community-based social media responses were compared.

Results: Media responses were narrow, primarily describing emotive individual narratives or the political nexus of interests. Community (including patient) responses were broader including discussion of opportunity cost and vested interests but mostly reflected the polar ends of the debate, diverging strongly for or against disinvestment from public funding.

Conclusion: Web2.0 and media analysis offers an inexpensive method to capture media portrayal, divergent community responses both to that portrayal and independent of it, and insight into the sociopolitical aspects of an entrenched technology undergoing disinvestment debate.

Objectives: Synthesizing qualitative research is an important means of ensuring the needs, preferences, and experiences of patients are taken into account by service providers and policy makers, but the range of methods available can appear confusing. This study presents the methods for synthesizing qualitative research most used in health research to-date and, specifically those with a potential role in health technology assessment.

Methods: To identify reviews conducted using the eight main methods for synthesizing qualitative studies, nine electronic databases were searched using key terms including meta-ethnography and synthesis. A summary table groups the identified reviews by their use of the eight methods, highlighting the methods used most generally and specifically in relation to health technology assessment topics.

Results: Although there is debate about how best to identify and quality appraise qualitative research for synthesis, 107 reviews were identified using one of the eight main methods. Four methods (meta-ethnography, meta-study, meta-summary, and thematic synthesis) have been most widely used and have a role within health technology assessment. Meta-ethnography is the leading method for synthesizing qualitative health research. Thematic synthesis is also useful for integrating qualitative and quantitative findings. Four other methods (critical interpretive synthesis, grounded theory synthesis, meta-interpretation, and cross-case analysis) have been under-used in health research and their potential in health technology assessments is currently under-developed.

Conclusions: Synthesizing individual qualitative studies has becoming increasingly common in recent years. Although this is still an emerging research discipline such an approach is one means of promoting the patient-centeredness of health technology assessments.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to develop the GRIPP (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and Public) checklist to enhance the quality of PPI reporting.

Methods: Thematic analysis was used to synthesize key issues relating to patient and public involvement (PPI) identified in the PIRICOM and PAPIRIS systematic reviews. These issues informed the development of the GRIPP checklist.

Results: The key issues identified included limited conceptualization of PPI, poor quality of methods reporting, unclear content validity of studies, poor reporting of context and process, enormous variability in the way impact is reported, little formal evaluation of the quality of involvement, limited focus on negative impacts, and little robust measurement of impact. The GRIPP checklist addresses these key issues.

Conclusion: The reporting of patient and public involvement in health research needs significant enhancement. The GRIPP checklist represents the first international attempt to enhance the quality of PPI reporting. Better reporting will strengthen the PPI evidence-base and so enable more effective evaluation of what PPI works, for whom, in what circumstances and why.