Suppr超能文献

潜在研究参与者想了解的关于研究的内容:一项系统综述。

What potential research participants want to know about research: a systematic review.

作者信息

Kirkby Helen Michelle, Calvert Melanie, Draper Heather, Keeley Thomas, Wilson Sue

机构信息

MRC Midlands Hub for Trials Methodology Research (HTMR), University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2012 May 30;2(3). doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000509. Print 2012.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To establish the empirical evidence base for the information that participants want to know about medical research and to assess how this relates to current guidance from the National Research Ethics Service (NRES).

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Web of Science, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Sociological abstracts, Health Management Information Consortium, Cochrane Library, thesis index's, grey literature databases, reference and cited article lists, key journals, Google Scholar and correspondence with expert authors.

STUDY SELECTION

Original research studies published between 1950 and October 2010 that asked potential participants to indicate how much or what types of information they wanted to be told about a research study or asked them to rate the importance of a specific piece of information were included.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Studies were appraised based on the generalisability of results to the UK potential research participant population. A metadata analysis using basic thematic analysis was used to split results from papers into themes based on the sections of information that NRES recommends should be included in a participant information sheet.

RESULTS

14 studies were included. Of the 20 pieces of information that NRES recommend should be included in patient information sheets for research pooled proportions could be calculated for seven themes. Results showed that potential participants wanted to be offered information about result dissemination (91% (95% CI 85% to 95%)), investigator conflicts of interest (48% (95% CI 27% to 69%)), the purpose of the study (76% (95% CI 27% to 100%)), voluntariness (39% (95% CI 2% to 100%)), how long the research would last (61% (95% CI 16% to 97%)), potential benefits (57% (95% CI 7% to 98%)) and confidentiality (44% (95% CI 10% to 82%)). The level of detail participants wanted to know was not explored comprehensively in the studies. There was no empirical evidence to support the level of information provision required by participants on the remaining seven items.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited empirical evidence on what potential participants want to know about research. The existing empirical evidence suggests that individuals may have very different needs and a more tailored evidence-based approach may be necessary.

摘要

目的

为参与者想了解的医学研究信息建立实证依据,并评估其与国家研究伦理服务机构(NRES)当前指南的关系。

数据来源

医学文献数据库(Medline)、科学引文索引(Web of Science)、应用社会科学索引与摘要数据库、社会学摘要数据库、卫生管理信息联盟、考克兰图书馆、论文索引、灰色文献数据库、参考文献及引用文章列表、重点期刊、谷歌学术以及与专家作者的通信。

研究选择

纳入1950年至2010年10月间发表的原创性研究,这些研究要求潜在参与者表明他们希望被告知多少关于一项研究的信息或何种类型的信息,或者要求他们对某一特定信息的重要性进行评分。

研究评估与综合方法

根据研究结果对英国潜在研究参与者群体的普遍性来评估研究。使用基于基本主题分析的元数据分析,根据NRES建议应包含在参与者信息表中的信息部分,将论文结果分为不同主题。

结果

纳入14项研究。对于NRES建议应包含在研究患者信息表中的20条信息,可计算出七个主题的汇总比例。结果显示,潜在参与者希望获得关于结果传播的信息(91%(95%置信区间85%至95%))、研究者的利益冲突(48%(95%置信区间27%至69%))、研究目的(76%(95%置信区间27%至100%))、自愿性(39%(95%置信区间2%至100%))、研究持续时间(61%(95%置信区间16%至97%))、潜在益处(57%(95%置信区间7%至98%))和保密性(44%(95%置信区间10%至82%))。研究中未全面探讨参与者希望了解的详细程度。对于其余七个项目,没有实证证据支持参与者所需的信息提供水平。

结论

关于潜在参与者想了解研究方面的实证证据有限。现有实证证据表明个体可能有非常不同的需求,可能需要一种更具针对性的循证方法。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6a68/3367142/aefe95778214/bmjopen-2011-000509fig1.jpg

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