Domecq Juan Pablo, Prutsky Gabriela, Elraiyah Tarig, Wang Zhen, Nabhan Mohammed, Shippee Nathan, Brito Juan Pablo, Boehmer Kasey, Hasan Rim, Firwana Belal, Erwin Patricia, Eton David, Sloan Jeff, Montori Victor, Asi Noor, Dabrh Abd Moain Abu, Murad Mohammad Hassan
Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Feb 26;14:89. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-89.
A compelling ethical rationale supports patient engagement in healthcare research. It is also assumed that patient engagement will lead to research findings that are more pertinent to patients' concerns and dilemmas. However; it is unclear how to best conduct this process. In this systematic review we aimed to answer 4 key questions: what are the best ways to identify patient representatives? How to engage them in designing and conducting research? What are the observed benefits of patient engagement? What are the harms and barriers of patient engagement?
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane, EBSCO, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Business Search Premier, Academic Search Premier and Google Scholar. Included studies were published in English, of any size or design that described engaging patients or their surrogates in research design. We conducted an environmental scan of the grey literature and consulted with experts and patients. Data were analyzed using a non-quantitative, meta-narrative approach.
We included 142 studies that described a spectrum of engagement. In general, engagement was feasible in most settings and most commonly done in the beginning of research (agenda setting and protocol development) and less commonly during the execution and translation of research. We found no comparative analytic studies to recommend a particular method. Patient engagement increased study enrollment rates and aided researchers in securing funding, designing study protocols and choosing relevant outcomes. The most commonly cited challenges were related to logistics (extra time and funding needed for engagement) and to an overarching worry of a tokenistic engagement.
Patient engagement in healthcare research is likely feasible in many settings. However, this engagement comes at a cost and can become tokenistic. Research dedicated to identifying the best methods to achieve engagement is lacking and clearly needed.
强有力的伦理依据支持患者参与医疗保健研究。人们还认为,患者参与将产生与患者的关切和困境更相关的研究结果。然而,目前尚不清楚如何以最佳方式开展这一过程。在这项系统评价中,我们旨在回答4个关键问题:确定患者代表的最佳方法有哪些?如何让他们参与研究设计和实施?患者参与有哪些观察到的益处?患者参与有哪些危害和障碍?
我们检索了MEDLINE、EMBASE、PsycInfo、Cochrane、EBSCO、CINAHL、SCOPUS、Web of Science、Business Search Premier、Academic Search Premier和谷歌学术。纳入的研究以英文发表,规模和设计不限,描述了让患者或其代理人参与研究设计的情况。我们对灰色文献进行了环境扫描,并咨询了专家和患者。使用非定量的元叙事方法对数据进行分析。
我们纳入了142项描述不同参与程度的研究。总体而言,在大多数情况下参与是可行的,最常见于研究开始阶段(设定议程和制定方案),而在研究执行和转化阶段较少见。我们没有找到比较分析研究来推荐特定方法。患者参与提高了研究入组率,并帮助研究人员获得资金、设计研究方案和选择相关结局。最常提到的挑战与后勤保障(参与需要额外的时间和资金)以及对象征性参与的总体担忧有关。
在许多情况下,患者参与医疗保健研究可能是可行的。然而,这种参与是有代价的,而且可能流于形式。缺乏专门致力于确定实现参与的最佳方法的研究,显然需要开展此类研究。