Suppr超能文献

美国国立过敏与传染病研究所艾滋病临床试验点的社区-研究人员合作关系:评估与加强的见解

Community-researcher partnerships at NIAID HIV/AIDS clinical trials sites: insights for evaluation and enhancement.

作者信息

Kagan Jonathan M, Rosas Scott R, Siskind Rona L, Campbell Russell D, Gondwe Daniel, Munroe David, Trochim William M K, Schouten Jeffrey T

机构信息

Division of Clinical Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, USA.

出版信息

Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2012 Fall;6(3):311-20. doi: 10.1353/cpr.2012.0034.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Community engagement has been a cornerstone of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)'s HIV/AIDS clinical trials programs since 1990. Stakeholders now consider this critical to success, hence the impetus to develop evaluation approaches.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose was to assess the extent to which community advisory boards (CABs) at HIV/AIDS trials sites are being integrated into research activities.

METHODS

CABs and research staff (RS) at NIAID research sites were surveyed for how each viewed (a) the frequency of activities indicative of community involvement, (b) the means for identifying, prioritizing, and supporting CAB needs, and (c) mission and operational challenges.

RESULTS

Overall, CABs and RS share similar views about the frequency of community involvement activities. Cluster analysis reveals three groups of sites based on activity frequency ratings, including a group notable for CAB-RS discordance.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessing differences between community and researcher perceptions about the frequency of and challenges posed by specific engagement activities may prove useful in developing evaluation tools for assessing community engagement in collaborative research settings.

摘要

背景

自1990年以来,社区参与一直是美国国立过敏与传染病研究所(NIAID)艾滋病临床试验项目的基石。利益相关者现在认为这对成功至关重要,因此推动了评估方法的发展。

目的

旨在评估艾滋病试验点的社区咨询委员会(CAB)融入研究活动的程度。

方法

对NIAID研究点的社区咨询委员会和研究人员进行调查,了解他们如何看待(a)表明社区参与的活动频率,(b)确定、优先考虑和支持社区咨询委员会需求的方式,以及(c)使命和运营挑战。

结果

总体而言,社区咨询委员会和研究人员对社区参与活动的频率看法相似。聚类分析根据活动频率评级将研究点分为三组,其中一组以社区咨询委员会与研究人员意见不一致为显著特征。

结论

评估社区与研究人员对特定参与活动的频率和所带来挑战的看法差异,可能有助于开发评估工具,以评估社区在合作研究环境中的参与情况。

相似文献

3
The Challenge of Community Representation.社区代表性的挑战。
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2016 Oct;11(4):311-321. doi: 10.1177/1556264616665760. Epub 2016 Sep 16.
7
The role of Community Advisory Boards (CABs) in Project Eban.社区咨询委员会(CABs)在伊班项目中的作用。
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2008 Sep 1;49 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S68-74. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e31818447f5.
8
Research advisory board members' contributions and expectations in the USA.美国研究咨询委员会成员的贡献与期望。
Health Promot Int. 2015 Jun;30(2):328-38. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dat042. Epub 2013 Jun 12.

引用本文的文献

3
What Matters to Whom: Patient and Public Involvement in Research.什么对谁重要:患者和公众参与研究。
Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Jun 1;65(2):268-276. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000694. Epub 2022 Feb 18.
7
Content validation of a quantitative stakeholder engagement measure.内容效度验证定量利益相关者参与度测量工具。
J Community Psychol. 2019 Nov;47(8):1937-1951. doi: 10.1002/jcop.22239. Epub 2019 Sep 2.
10
Systematic Review of Quantitative Measures of Stakeholder Engagement.利益相关者参与度定量测量的系统评价
Clin Transl Sci. 2017 Sep;10(5):314-336. doi: 10.1111/cts.12474. Epub 2017 May 29.

本文引用的文献

1
Evaluating translational research: a process marker model.评估转化研究:过程标志物模型。
Clin Transl Sci. 2011 Jun;4(3):153-62. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00291.x.
8
Describing the impact of health services and policy research.描述卫生服务与政策研究的影响。
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007 Apr;12 Suppl 1:S1-23-31. doi: 10.1258/135581907780318374.

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