Suppr超能文献

公众参与对研究的影响能否评估?一项混合方法研究。

Can the impact of public involvement on research be evaluated? A mixed methods study.

机构信息

University of Sheffield, School of Health and Related Research, Section of Public Health, Sheffield, UK.

出版信息

Health Expect. 2012 Sep;15(3):229-41. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00660.x. Epub 2011 Feb 17.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Public involvement is central to health and social research policies, yet few systematic evaluations of its impact have been carried out, raising questions about the feasibility of evaluating the impact of public involvement.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether it is feasible to evaluate the impact of public involvement on health and social research.

METHODS

Mixed methods including a two-round Delphi study with pre-specified 80% consensus criterion, with follow-up interviews. UK and international panellists came from different settings, including universities, health and social care institutions and charitable organizations. They comprised researchers, members of the public, research managers, commissioners and policy makers, self-selected as having knowledge and/or experience of public involvement in health and/or social research; 124 completed both rounds of the Delphi process. A purposive sample of 14 panellists was interviewed.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached that it is feasible to evaluate the impact of public involvement on 5 of 16 impact issues: identifying and prioritizing research topics, disseminating research findings and on key stakeholders. Qualitative analysis revealed the complexities of evaluating a process that is subjective and socially constructed. While many panellists believed that it is morally right to involve the public in research, they also considered that it is appropriate to evaluate the impact of public involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found consensus among panellists that it is feasible to evaluate the impact of public involvement on some research processes, outcomes and on key stakeholders. The value of public involvement and the importance of evaluating its impact were endorsed.

摘要

背景

公众参与是卫生和社会研究政策的核心,但对其影响的系统评估很少,这引发了对评估公众参与影响的可行性的质疑。

目的

调查评估公众参与对卫生和社会研究的影响是否可行。

方法

混合方法,包括两轮德尔菲研究,采用预先规定的 80%共识标准,并进行后续访谈。英国和国际专家组成员来自不同的背景,包括大学、卫生和社会保健机构以及慈善组织。他们由研究人员、公众成员、研究管理人员、委托人和政策制定者组成,他们是自我选择的,具有在卫生和/或社会研究中参与公众的知识和/或经验;124 人完成了两轮德尔菲流程。对 14 名专家组成员进行了有针对性的访谈。

结果

达成共识,评估公众参与对 16 个影响问题中的 5 个问题的影响是可行的:确定和优先考虑研究课题、传播研究结果以及关键利益相关者。定性分析揭示了评估一个主观和社会构建的过程的复杂性。虽然许多专家组成员认为让公众参与研究在道德上是正确的,但他们也认为评估公众参与的影响是合适的。

结论

本研究发现,专家组成员达成共识,评估公众参与对某些研究过程、结果和关键利益相关者的影响是可行的。公众参与的价值以及评估其影响的重要性得到了认可。

相似文献

1
Can the impact of public involvement on research be evaluated? A mixed methods study.
Health Expect. 2012 Sep;15(3):229-41. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00660.x. Epub 2011 Feb 17.
4
What does it mean to involve consumers successfully in NHS research? A consensus study.
Health Expect. 2004 Sep;7(3):209-20. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2004.00278.x.
7
A practice-based tool for engaging stakeholders in future research: a synthesis of current practices.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Jun;66(6):666-74. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.12.010. Epub 2013 Mar 13.
8
Development of measurable indicators to enhance public health evidence-informed policy-making.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 May 31;16(1):47. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0323-z.
9
10
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.

引用本文的文献

2
Participatory research with carers: A systematic review and narrative synthesis.
Health Expect. 2024 Feb;27(1):e13940. doi: 10.1111/hex.13940.
4
Barriers and Enablers to Evaluating Outcomes From Public Involvement in Health Service Design: An Interpretive Description.
Qual Health Res. 2023 Sep;33(11):983-994. doi: 10.1177/10497323231191048. Epub 2023 Aug 7.
6
Novel patient-centred outcome in cancer care, days at home: a scoping review protocol.
BMJ Open. 2023 Mar 17;13(3):e071201. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071201.
7
Research Buddy partnership in a MD-PhD program: lessons learned.
Res Involv Engagem. 2023 Feb 18;9(1):4. doi: 10.1186/s40900-023-00414-9.
9
Implementing public involvement throughout the research process-Experience and learning from the GPs in EDs study.
Health Expect. 2022 Oct;25(5):2471-2484. doi: 10.1111/hex.13566. Epub 2022 Jul 27.
10
Patient-centered outcomes for gastrointestinal cancer care: a scoping review protocol.
BMJ Open. 2022 Jun 14;12(6):e061309. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061309.

本文引用的文献

1
Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: a narrative review of case examples.
Health Policy. 2010 Apr;95(1):10-23. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.11.007. Epub 2009 Dec 5.
2
Involving burn survivors in agenda setting on burn research: an added value?
Burns. 2010 Mar;36(2):217-31. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2009.04.004. Epub 2009 Jul 4.
3
Health researchers' attitudes towards public involvement in health research.
Health Expect. 2009 Jun;12(2):209-20. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00532.x. Epub 2009 Apr 22.
4
Measuring the impact of patient and public involvement: the need for an evidence base.
Int J Qual Health Care. 2008 Dec;20(6):373-4. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzn044. Epub 2008 Oct 3.
6
A Delphi study to identify healthcare users' priorities for cancer care in Greece.
Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2008 Sep;12(4):362-71. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2008.04.010. Epub 2008 Jun 10.
8
Assessing the promise of user involvement in health service development: ethnographic study.
BMJ. 2008 Feb 9;336(7639):313-7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39456.552257.BE. Epub 2008 Jan 29.
9
Involving users in developing health services.
BMJ. 2008 Feb 9;336(7639):286-7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39462.598750.80. Epub 2008 Jan 29.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验