• 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
Establishing local priorities for a health research agenda.制定卫生研究议程的地方重点。
Health Expect. 2015 Feb;18(1):8-21. doi: 10.1111/hex.12029. Epub 2012 Dec 6.
2
A lung cancer research agenda that reflects the diverse perspectives of community stakeholders: process and outcomes of the SEED method.一项反映社区利益相关者不同观点的肺癌研究议程:SEED方法的过程与成果
Res Involv Engagem. 2019 Jan 11;5:3. doi: 10.1186/s40900-018-0134-y. eCollection 2019.
3
Lessons from a research partnership in southwest England to understand community palliative care needs in rural, coastal and low-income communities.英格兰西南部一项研究合作项目的经验教训,旨在了解农村、沿海和低收入社区的社区姑息治疗需求。
Public Health Res (Southampt). 2024 Feb 28:1-40. doi: 10.3310/ATFA4287.
4
Overview of a multi-stakeholder dialogue around Shared Services for Health: the Digital Health Opportunity in Bangladesh.围绕卫生共享服务的多方利益相关者对话概述:孟加拉国的数字健康机遇
Health Res Policy Syst. 2015 Dec 9;13:74. doi: 10.1186/s12961-015-0063-2.
5
Patient- and public-driven health research: a model of co-leadership and partnership in research priority setting using a modified James Lind Alliance approach.患者和公众驱动的健康研究:一种采用改良版詹姆斯·林德联盟方法在研究优先级设定中进行共同领导与合作的模式。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2025 May;181:111731. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111731. Epub 2025 Feb 25.
6
The development of a national nutrition and mental health research agenda with comparison of priorities among diverse stakeholders.制定一项国家营养与心理健康研究议程,并比较不同利益相关者的优先事项。
Public Health Nutr. 2017 Mar;20(4):712-725. doi: 10.1017/S1368980016002056. Epub 2017 Jan 16.
7
Meeting social welfare legal needs in end-of-life care: co-creation of a system-wide research partnership.满足临终关怀中的社会福利法律需求:全系统研究伙伴关系的共同创建。
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2024 Sep 11:1-21. doi: 10.3310/YGRA9852.
8
Developing population health research priorities in Asian city state: Results from a multi-step participatory community engagement.在亚洲城邦制定人口健康研究重点:多步骤参与式社区参与的结果。
PLoS One. 2019 May 1;14(5):e0216303. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216303. eCollection 2019.
9
Primary Care Research Team Assessment (PCRTA): development and evaluation.基层医疗研究团队评估(PCRTA):开发与评估
Occas Pap R Coll Gen Pract. 2002 Feb(81):iii-vi, 1-72.
10
Developing research collaborations and building capacity in palliative and end-of-life care in the North West Coast of England: the PalCaRe-NWC partnership.在英格兰西北海岸开展姑息治疗和临终关怀方面的研究合作并建设相关能力:PalCaRe-NWC伙伴关系。
Public Health Res (Southampt). 2025 Mar 19:1-13. doi: 10.3310/AWLT2995.

引用本文的文献

1
Pharmacy-related research for health in the Arab region: An analysis informed by WHO's global strategy on research for health.阿拉伯地区与药学相关的卫生研究:基于世界卫生组织全球卫生研究战略的分析
Explor Res Clin Soc Pharm. 2021 Dec 14;5:100099. doi: 10.1016/j.rcsop.2021.100099. eCollection 2022 Mar.
2
A realist evaluation of a collaborative model to support research co-production in long-term care settings in England: the ExCHANGE protocol.对英格兰长期护理机构中支持研究共同生产的协作模式的现实主义评估:ExCHANGE 方案
Res Involv Engagem. 2021 Mar 20;7(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s40900-021-00257-2.
3
Missed opportunities for impact in patient and carer involvement: a mixed methods case study of research priority setting.患者及护理人员参与方面错失的影响机会:一项关于研究优先级设定的混合方法案例研究
Res Involv Engagem. 2015 Aug 4;1:7. doi: 10.1186/s40900-015-0007-6. eCollection 2015.
4
Using the Nine Common Themes of Good Practice checklist as a tool for evaluating the research priority setting process of a provincial research and program evaluation program.使用良好实践的九个共同主题清单作为评估省级研究与项目评估计划的研究优先级设定过程的工具。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2016 Mar 23;14:22. doi: 10.1186/s12961-016-0092-5.
5
On-going collaborative priority-setting for research activity: a method of capacity building to reduce the research-practice translational gap.针对研究活动的持续合作性优先事项设定:一种缩小研究与实践转化差距的能力建设方法。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2015 May 7;13:25. doi: 10.1186/s12961-015-0014-y.
6
Individualisation of drug treatments for patients with long-term conditions: a review of concepts.长期病症患者药物治疗的个体化:概念综述
BMJ Open. 2014 Mar 26;4(3):e004172. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004172.

本文引用的文献

1
Patients' and clinicians' research priorities.患者和临床医生的研究重点。
Health Expect. 2011 Dec;14(4):439-48. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00648.x. Epub 2010 Dec 22.
2
Priority setting for health technology assessment at CADTH.加拿大药物和技术评估署(CADTH)的卫生技术评估优先排序。
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010 Jul;26(3):341-7. doi: 10.1017/S0266462310000383.
3
The James Lind alliance: tackling treatment uncertainties together.詹姆斯·林德联盟:携手应对治疗中的不确定性。
J Ambul Care Manage. 2010 Jul-Sep;33(3):241-8. doi: 10.1097/JAC.0b013e3181e62cda.
4
An implementation research agenda.实施研究议程。
Implement Sci. 2009 Apr 7;4:18. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-18.
5
Do different stakeholder groups share mental health research priorities? A four-arm Delphi study.不同利益相关者群体是否共享心理健康研究重点?一项四臂德尔菲研究。
Health Expect. 2008 Dec;11(4):418-31. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00492.x.
6
Revisiting the emergency medicine services for children research agenda: priorities for multicenter research in pediatric emergency care.重新审视儿童急诊医学服务研究议程:儿科急诊护理多中心研究的优先事项。
Acad Emerg Med. 2008 Apr;15(4):377-83. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00072.x.
7
Priority setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of current practical approaches.卫生技术评估的优先级设定:对当前实用方法的系统评价
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007 Summer;23(3):310-5. doi: 10.1017/s026646230707050x.
8
The Cooksey review of UK health research funding.库克西对英国健康研究资金的审查。
BMJ. 2006 Dec 16;333(7581):1231-2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39059.444120.80.
9
Health technology assessment in primary and community care.基层和社区医疗中的卫生技术评估。
Br J Gen Pract. 2000 Jan;50(450):3-4.

制定卫生研究议程的地方重点。

Establishing local priorities for a health research agenda.

机构信息

Peninsula Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (PenCLAHRC), University of Exeter, Exeter.

出版信息

Health Expect. 2015 Feb;18(1):8-21. doi: 10.1111/hex.12029. Epub 2012 Dec 6.

DOI:10.1111/hex.12029
PMID:23216859
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4864394/
Abstract

AIM/BACKGROUND: To describe the two-stage prioritization process being used by the UK National Institute for Health Research's Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for the South-West Peninsula (or PenCLAHRC) - a joint health service and university partnership and reflect on implications for the wider context of priority setting in health-care research.

METHOD

PenCLAHRC's process establishes the priorities of Stakeholders including service users across a regional health system for locally relevant health services research and implementation. Health research questions are collected from clinicians, academics and service users in Devon and Cornwall (UK) using a web-based question formulation tool. There is a two-stage prioritization process which uses explicit criteria and a wide Stakeholder group, including service users to identify important research questions relevant to the south-west peninsula locality.

RESULTS

To date, a wide variety of health research topics have been prioritized by the PenCLAHRC Stakeholders. The research agenda reflects the interests of academics, clinicians and service users in the local area. Potential challenges to implementation of the process include time constraints, variable quality of questions (including the language of research) and initiating and maintaining engagement in the process. Shared prioritization of local health research needs can be achieved between Stakeholders from a wide range of perspectives.

CONCLUSIONS

The processes developed have been successful and, with minor changes, will continue to be used during subsequent rounds of prioritization. Engagement of Stakeholders in establishing a research agenda encourages the most relevant health questions to be asked and may improve implementation of research findings and take up by service users.

摘要

目的/背景:描述英国国家卫生研究院合作应用健康研究与护理(PenCLAHRC)在南德文郡的两阶段优先排序过程 - 这是一个联合卫生服务和大学的合作伙伴关系,并反映了在更广泛的医疗保健研究优先排序背景下的意义。

方法

PenCLAHRC 的流程确定了利益相关者(包括整个区域卫生系统的服务使用者)的优先事项,以开展当地相关的健康服务研究和实施。使用基于网络的问题制定工具,从德文郡和康沃尔郡(英国)的临床医生、学者和服务使用者那里收集健康研究问题。该流程有两阶段的优先排序过程,使用明确的标准和广泛的利益相关者群体,包括服务使用者,以确定与西南半岛地区相关的重要研究问题。

结果

迄今为止,PenCLAHRC 的利益相关者已经对各种健康研究主题进行了优先排序。研究议程反映了该地区学者、临床医生和服务使用者的兴趣。实施该过程的潜在挑战包括时间限制、问题质量的差异(包括研究的语言)以及在该过程中的启动和维持参与。来自广泛视角的利益相关者可以共同确定当地健康研究需求的优先排序。

结论

所开发的流程是成功的,并且在随后的优先排序轮次中,只需进行微小的更改即可继续使用。利益相关者参与制定研究议程可以鼓励提出最相关的健康问题,并可能提高研究结果的实施和服务使用者的采纳。