• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Patient-expert partnerships in research: how to stimulate inclusion of patient perspectives.患者-专家研究伙伴关系:如何激发患者观点的包容性。
Health Expect. 2011 Sep;14(3):225-39. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00647.x. Epub 2010 Dec 22.
2
Patient involvement in research programming and implementation: A responsive evaluation of the Dialogue Model for research agenda setting.患者参与研究规划与实施:对研究议程设定对话模型的响应性评估
Health Expect. 2015 Dec;18(6):2449-64. doi: 10.1111/hex.12213. Epub 2014 May 30.
3
Measuring patient and physician participation in exchanges on medications: Dialogue Ratio, Preponderance of Initiative, and Dialogical Roles.衡量患者和医生在药物交流中的参与度:对话比率、主动性优势及对话角色。
Patient Educ Couns. 2007 Mar;65(3):329-41. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2006.08.014. Epub 2006 Nov 13.
4
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
5
Inclusion strategies in multi-stakeholder dialogues: The case of a community-based participatory research on immunization in Nigeria.多方利益攸关者对话中的包容性策略:尼日利亚基于社区的参与性免疫研究案例。
PLoS One. 2022 Mar 22;17(3):e0264304. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264304. eCollection 2022.
6
Consumers' and health providers' views and perceptions of partnering to improve health services design, delivery and evaluation: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.消费者和卫生服务提供者对合作改善卫生服务设计、提供和评估的看法和认知:一项共同制定的定性证据综合研究。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Mar 14;3(3):CD013274. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013274.pub2.
7
Participants' experiences of being interviewed about an emotive topic.参与者就一个情感性话题接受访谈的经历。
J Adv Nurs. 2006 Sep;55(5):587-95. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03950.x.
8
Comparison of audio vs. audio + video for the rating of shared decision making in oncology using the observer OPTION instrument: an exploratory analysis.使用观察者OPTION工具比较音频与音频加视频用于肿瘤学共同决策评分的研究:一项探索性分析
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Jul 4;18(1):522. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3329-x.
9
Patient participation as dialogue: setting research agendas.患者参与作为对话:设定研究议程。
Health Expect. 2010 Jun;13(2):160-73. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00549.x.
10
"They Are Talking About Me, but Not with Me": A Focus Group Study to Explore the Patient Perspective on Interprofessional Team Meetings in Primary Care.“他们在谈论我,但没有和我谈”:一项探索初级保健中患者对多专业团队会议看法的焦点小组研究。
Patient. 2017 Aug;10(4):429-438. doi: 10.1007/s40271-017-0214-3.

引用本文的文献

1
Patient Advocates for Clinical Research (PACER): A Step Toward Ethical, Relevant, and Truly Participatory Clinical Research in India.印度临床研究患者权益倡导者组织(PACER):迈向印度伦理、相关且真正参与式临床研究的一步。
Cureus. 2024 Apr 17;16(4):e58454. doi: 10.7759/cureus.58454. eCollection 2024 Apr.
2
The most important problems and needs of rasopathy patients with a noonan syndrome spectrum disorder.诺兰综合征谱障碍的神经纤维瘤病患者的最重要问题和需求。
Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2023 Jul 21;18(1):198. doi: 10.1186/s13023-023-02818-y.
3
Building Research Initiatives by Developing Group Effort (BRIDGE): Patient-Partners in Aphasia Research.建立通过发展团队合作的研究倡议(BRIDGE):失语症研究中的患者伙伴。
Semin Speech Lang. 2022 Nov;43(5):426-444. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1756644. Epub 2022 Oct 26.
4
Understanding racialised older adults' experiences of the Canadian healthcare system, and codesigning solutions: protocol for a qualitative study in nine languages.理解种族化的老年群体在加拿大医疗保健系统中的体验,并共同设计解决方案:一项在 9 种语言中进行的定性研究方案。
BMJ Open. 2022 Oct 10;12(10):e068013. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068013.
5
An international Delphi survey and consensus meeting to define the core outcome set for trigeminal neuralgia clinical trials.一项用于定义三叉神经痛临床试验核心结局集的国际 Delphi 调查和共识会议。
Eur J Pain. 2023 Jan;27(1):86-98. doi: 10.1002/ejp.2041. Epub 2022 Oct 4.
6
Inclusion strategies in multi-stakeholder dialogues: The case of a community-based participatory research on immunization in Nigeria.多方利益攸关者对话中的包容性策略:尼日利亚基于社区的参与性免疫研究案例。
PLoS One. 2022 Mar 22;17(3):e0264304. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264304. eCollection 2022.
7
Establishing the research agenda for oral healthcare using the Dialogue Model-patient involvement in a joint research agenda with practitioners.利用对话模式为口腔保健制定研究议程——患者与从业者共同参与制定研究议程。
Eur J Oral Sci. 2022 Feb;130(1):e12842. doi: 10.1111/eos.12842. Epub 2021 Dec 22.
8
Patient oriented research in mental health: matching laboratory to life and beyond in Canada.加拿大以患者为导向的心理健康研究:让实验室与现实生活相匹配及其他
Res Involv Engagem. 2021 Apr 26;7(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s40900-021-00266-1.
9
Is Co-production Just a Pipe Dream for Applied Health Research Commissioning? An Exploratory Literature Review.联合生产对于应用健康研究委托而言只是一个白日梦吗?一项探索性文献综述。
Front Sociol. 2019 Jun 24;4:50. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2019.00050. eCollection 2019.
10
Stroke survivors' experiences with rebuilding life in the community and exercising at home: A qualitative study.脑卒中幸存者在社区重建生活和在家锻炼的体验:一项定性研究。
Nurs Open. 2021 Sep;8(5):2567-2577. doi: 10.1002/nop2.788. Epub 2021 Mar 10.

本文引用的文献

1
Patient participation as dialogue: setting research agendas.患者参与作为对话:设定研究议程。
Health Expect. 2010 Jun;13(2):160-73. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00549.x.
2
Revolution or evolution: the challenges of conceptualizing patient and public involvement in a consumerist world.革命还是演进:在消费主义世界中构思患者及公众参与所面临的挑战
Health Expect. 2009 Sep;12(3):275-87. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00564.x.
3
Involving burn survivors in agenda setting on burn research: an added value?让烧伤幸存者参与烧伤研究议程制定:增值吗?
Burns. 2010 Mar;36(2):217-31. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2009.04.004. Epub 2009 Jul 4.
4
Health researchers' attitudes towards public involvement in health research.健康研究人员对公众参与健康研究的态度。
Health Expect. 2009 Jun;12(2):209-20. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00532.x. Epub 2009 Apr 22.
5
Patients as partners in responsive research: methodological notions for collaborations in mixed research teams.患者作为响应性研究的合作伙伴:混合研究团队合作的方法学理念。
Qual Health Res. 2009 Mar;19(3):401-15. doi: 10.1177/1049732309331869.
6
Promoting food security and well-being among poor and HIV/AIDS affected households: lessons from an interactive and integrated approach.促进贫困及受艾滋病毒/艾滋病影响家庭的粮食安全与福祉:互动式综合方法的经验教训
Eval Program Plann. 2009 Feb;32(1):31-42. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.09.002. Epub 2008 Sep 24.
7
Knowledge legitimacy: how trans-patient behavior supports and challenges current medical knowledge.知识合法性:跨患者行为如何支持并挑战当前医学知识
Qual Health Res. 2008 Oct;18(10):1345-55. doi: 10.1177/1049732308324247.
8
The patient movement as an emancipation movement.患者运动作为一场解放运动。
Health Expect. 2008 Jun;11(2):102-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00475.x.
9
The role of users in innovation in the pharmaceutical industry.用户在制药行业创新中的作用。
Drug Discov Today. 2008 Apr;13(7-8):353-9. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2007.12.006. Epub 2008 Feb 14.
10
A multidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services research.一个用于分析公众参与卫生服务研究的多维概念框架。
Health Expect. 2008 Mar;11(1):72-84. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00476.x.

患者-专家研究伙伴关系:如何激发患者观点的包容性。

Patient-expert partnerships in research: how to stimulate inclusion of patient perspectives.

机构信息

Athena Institute, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Health Expect. 2011 Sep;14(3):225-39. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00647.x. Epub 2010 Dec 22.

DOI:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00647.x
PMID:21176013
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5060578/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE To gain more insight into exclusion mechanisms and inclusion strategies in patient-expert partnerships. BACKGROUND Patient participation in health research, on the level of 'partnerships with experts' is a growing phenomenon. However, little research is conducted whether exclusion mechanisms take place and to what extent patients' perspectives are included in the final outcomes of these partnerships. Case study  A dialogue meeting attended by experts, patients and patient representatives to develop a joint research agenda. Different inclusion strategies were applied during the dialogue meeting to avoid possible exclusion. METHOD Data were collected by the means of audio and video recordings, observations, document analysis and evaluative interviews. The data are clustered using a framework that divides exclusion mechanisms in three categories: circumstances, behaviour and verbal communication. The data are analysed focusing on the experiences of participants, observation of occurrence of exclusion and difference between input and outcome of the dialogue meeting. RESULTS The circumstances of the dialogue and the behaviour of the participants were experienced as mainly inclusive. Some exclusion was observed particularly with respect to verbal communication. The input of the patients was less visible in the outcome of the dialogue meeting compared to the input of the experts. CONCLUSION This case study reveals that exclusion of patients' perspective occurred during a dialogue meeting with experts, despite the fact that inclusion strategies were used and patients experienced the dialogue meeting as inclusive. To realize a more effective patient-expert partnership, more attention should be paid to the application of some additional inclusion strategies.

摘要

目的

深入了解患者-专家伙伴关系中的排除机制和纳入策略。

背景

患者参与健康研究,即“与专家的伙伴关系”,是一种日益增长的现象。然而,很少有研究探讨是否存在排除机制,以及在这些伙伴关系的最终结果中纳入了患者观点的程度。

案例研究

召开专家、患者和患者代表参加的对话会议,制定联合研究议程。在对话会议期间应用了不同的纳入策略,以避免可能的排除。

方法

通过音频和视频记录、观察、文件分析和评估访谈收集数据。使用一种将排除机制分为三类的框架对数据进行聚类:情况、行为和口头交流。分析数据时,重点关注参与者的经验、排除的发生情况以及对话会议的投入和结果之间的差异。

结果

对话的情况和参与者的行为被体验为主要包容性的。在口头交流方面观察到了一些排除。与专家的投入相比,患者的投入在对话会议的结果中不太明显。

结论

尽管使用了纳入策略,并且患者将对话会议体验为包容性的,但本案例研究表明,在与专家的对话会议中,确实发生了排除患者观点的情况。为了实现更有效的患者-专家伙伴关系,应更加关注一些额外纳入策略的应用。