• 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

协作学习的促进性要素:对九个健康研究网络的综述

Facilitative Components of Collaborative Learning: A Review of Nine Health Research Networks.

作者信息

Leroy Lisa, Rittner Jessica Levin, Johnson Karin E, Gerteis Jessie, Miller Therese

机构信息

US Health Division, Abt Associates, Cambridge, MA.

MacColl Center for Health Care Innovation, Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA.

出版信息

Healthc Policy. 2017 Feb;12(3):19-33.

PMID:28277202
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5344361/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Collaborative research networks are increasingly used as an effective mechanism for accelerating knowledge transfer into policy and practice. This paper explored the characteristics and collaborative learning approaches of nine health research networks.

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Semi-structured interviews with representatives from eight diverse US health services research networks conducted between November 2012 and January 2013 and program evaluation data from a ninth.

STUDY DESIGN

The qualitative analysis assessed each network's purpose, duration, funding sources, governance structure, methods used to foster collaboration, and barriers and facilitators to collaborative learning.

DATA COLLECTION

The authors reviewed detailed notes from the interviews to distill salient themes.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Face-to-face meetings, intentional facilitation and communication, shared vision, trust among members and willingness to work together were key facilitators of collaborative learning. Competing priorities for members, limited funding and lack of long-term support and geographic dispersion were the main barriers to coordination and collaboration across research network members.

CONCLUSION

The findings illustrate the importance of collaborative learning in research networks and the challenges to evaluating the success of research network functionality. Conducting readiness assessments and developing process and outcome evaluation metrics will advance the design and show the impact of collaborative research networks.

摘要

目的

合作研究网络越来越多地被用作一种将知识加速转化为政策和实践的有效机制。本文探讨了九个健康研究网络的特征和合作学习方法。

数据来源/研究背景:2012年11月至2013年1月期间,对美国八个不同的健康服务研究网络的代表进行了半结构化访谈,并获取了第九个网络的项目评估数据。

研究设计

定性分析评估了每个网络的目的、持续时间、资金来源、治理结构、促进合作的方法以及合作学习的障碍和促进因素。

数据收集

作者回顾了访谈的详细记录,以提炼出突出的主题。

主要发现

面对面会议、有意的促进和沟通、共同愿景、成员之间的信任以及合作意愿是合作学习的关键促进因素。成员的相互竞争的优先事项、资金有限、缺乏长期支持以及地理分散是研究网络成员之间协调与合作的主要障碍。

结论

研究结果说明了合作学习在研究网络中的重要性以及评估研究网络功能成功与否所面临的挑战。进行准备情况评估并制定过程和结果评估指标将推动合作研究网络的设计并展示其影响。

相似文献

1
Facilitative Components of Collaborative Learning: A Review of Nine Health Research Networks.协作学习的促进性要素:对九个健康研究网络的综述
Healthc Policy. 2017 Feb;12(3):19-33.
2
Collaborative research networks in health: a pragmatic scoping study for the development of an imaging network.健康领域的合作研究网络:一项关于影像网络发展的务实范围界定研究。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2015 Dec 9;13:76. doi: 10.1186/s12961-015-0067-y.
3
Facilitators and barriers to students' learning in an obesity prevention graduate program.肥胖预防研究生项目中学生学习的促进因素和障碍
J Interprof Care. 2018 Jan;32(1):111-114. doi: 10.1080/13561820.2017.1356811. Epub 2017 Sep 25.
4
Professionals learning together with patients: An exploratory study of a collaborative learning Fellowship programme for healthcare improvement.专业人员与患者共同学习:一项关于促进医疗改善的合作学习奖学金计划的探索性研究。
J Interprof Care. 2018 May;32(3):257-265. doi: 10.1080/13561820.2017.1392935. Epub 2017 Dec 14.
5
Pediatric collaborative improvement networks: background and overview.儿科合作改进网络:背景与概述。
Pediatrics. 2013 Jun;131 Suppl 4:S189-95. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-3786E.
6
Collaborative networks for both improvement and research.合作网络,用于改进和研究。
Pediatrics. 2013 Jun;131 Suppl 4:S210-4. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-3786H.
7
Clinician and Staff Perspectives on Participating in Practice-based Research (PBR): A Report from the Wisconsin Research and Education Network (WREN).临床医生和工作人员对参与基于实践的研究(PBR)的看法:来自威斯康星研究与教育网络(WREN)的报告。
J Am Board Fam Med. 2015 Sep-Oct;28(5):639-48. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2015.05.150038.
8
Pediatric collaborative networks for quality improvement and research.用于质量改进和研究的儿科协作网络。
Acad Pediatr. 2013 Nov-Dec;13(6 Suppl):S69-74. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2013.07.004.
9
The Vermont Oxford Network: evidence-based quality improvement for neonatology.佛蒙特牛津网络:新生儿学基于证据的质量改进。
Pediatrics. 1999 Jan;103(1 Suppl E):350-9.
10
Capturing readiness to learn and collaboration as explored with an interprofessional simulation scenario: A mixed-methods research study.通过跨专业模拟场景探索捕捉学习意愿与协作:一项混合方法研究。
Nurse Educ Today. 2016 Jan;36:348-53. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2015.08.018. Epub 2015 Sep 1.

引用本文的文献

1
Exploring factors affecting knowledge creation in under-researched healthcare topics: a case study of women's health research.探索影响研究不足的医疗保健主题中知识创造的因素:以女性健康研究为例
Health Res Policy Syst. 2025 May 20;23(1):62. doi: 10.1186/s12961-025-01339-3.
2
A Qualitative Exploration of COVID+ Learning Network Webinars: Healthcare Learnings at Pace in a State of Rapid Change.新冠疫情学习网络研讨会的定性探索:快速变化中的医疗保健学习步伐。
J Prim Care Community Health. 2024 Jan-Dec;15:21501319241295672. doi: 10.1177/21501319241295672.
3
What are the features of high-performing quality improvement collaboratives? A qualitative case study of a state-wide collaboratives programme.高绩效质量改进合作有哪些特点?全州范围合作项目的定性案例研究。
BMJ Open. 2023 Dec 13;13(12):e076648. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076648.
4
Describing the state of a research network: A mixed methods approach to network evaluation.描述研究网络的状态:一种网络评估的混合方法
Res Eval. 2022 Oct 28;32(2):188-199. doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvac034. eCollection 2023 Apr.
5
Stakeholder-engaged co-design and implementation of web-based tools to enhance the dissemination and implementation of AHRQ EPC reports.利益相关者参与的基于网络工具的协同设计与实施,以加强美国医疗保健研究与质量局(AHRQ)循证实践中心(EPC)报告的传播与实施。
Learn Health Syst. 2022 Aug 23;7(2):e10326. doi: 10.1002/lrh2.10326. eCollection 2023 Apr.
6
Development and Early Experience of a Primary Care Learning Collaborative in a Large Health Care System.在大型医疗体系中初级保健学习协作的发展与早期经验
J Prim Care Community Health. 2022 Jan-Dec;13:21501319221089775. doi: 10.1177/21501319221089775.
7
Factors determining development of researchers within a research network on cancer diagnosis in primary care (CanTest): an interview study.决定初级保健中癌症诊断研究网络内研究人员发展的因素(CanTest):一项访谈研究。
BMJ Open. 2022 Mar 10;12(3):e046321. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046321.
8
Global mental health and the DIADA project.全球心理健康与 DIADA 项目。
Rev Colomb Psiquiatr (Engl Ed). 2021 Jul;50 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):13-21. doi: 10.1016/j.rcpeng.2021.07.001. Epub 2021 Jul 30.
9
Multi-level analysis of the learning health system: Integrating contributions from research on organizations and implementation.学习型健康系统的多层次分析:整合来自组织研究与实施研究的贡献。
Learn Health Syst. 2020 Apr 2;5(2):e10226. doi: 10.1002/lrh2.10226. eCollection 2021 Apr.
10
A Perspective of International Collaboration Through Web-Based Telecommunication-Inspired by COVID-19 Crisis.受新冠疫情危机启发,基于网络电信的国际合作展望
Front Hum Neurosci. 2020 Nov 23;14:577465. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2020.577465. eCollection 2020.

本文引用的文献

1
Launching PCORnet, a national patient-centered clinical research network.启动 PCORnet,一个全国性的以患者为中心的临床研究网络。
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014 Jul-Aug;21(4):578-82. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2014-002747. Epub 2014 May 12.
2
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Multiple Chronic Conditions Research Network: overview of research contributions and future priorities.美国医疗保健研究与质量署多种慢性疾病研究网络:研究贡献概述和未来重点。
Med Care. 2014 Mar;52 Suppl 3:S15-22. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000095.
3
Creating and supporting a mixed methods health services research team.创建和支持一个混合方法的卫生服务研究团队。
Health Serv Res. 2013 Dec;48(6 Pt 2):2157-80. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12118. Epub 2013 Oct 21.
4
Community capacity building: a collaborative approach to designing a training and education model.社区能力建设:一种设计培训与教育模式的协作方法。
Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2013 Fall;7(3):291-9. doi: 10.1353/cpr.2013.0031.
5
Assessing the value of team science: a study comparing center- and investigator-initiated grants.评估团队科学的价值:一项比较中心发起和研究者发起的资助的研究。
Am J Prev Med. 2012 Feb;42(2):157-63. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.10.011.
6
Evaluating primary care research networks: a review of currently available tools.评价初级保健研究网络:现有工具的综述。
J Am Board Fam Med. 2010 Jul-Aug;23(4):465-75. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2010.04.090297.
7
System-based participatory research in health care: an approach for sustainable translational research and quality improvement.基于系统的医疗保健参与式研究:一种可持续转化研究和质量改进的方法。
Ann Fam Med. 2010 May-Jun;8(3):256-9. doi: 10.1370/afm.1117.
8
Using team science to address health disparities: MacArthur network as case example.利用团队科学解决健康差异问题:以麦克阿瑟网络为例。
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010 Feb;1186:252-60. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05335.x.
9
The Cardiovascular Research Network: a new paradigm for cardiovascular quality and outcomes research.心血管研究网络:心血管质量与结局研究的新范式。
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2008 Nov;1(2):138-47. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.108.801654.
10
Research Consortium on Children with Chronic Conditions (RCCCC): a vehicle for interdisciplinary collaborative research.研究患有慢性疾病的儿童的研究联盟(RCCCC):一个跨学科合作研究的载体。
Matern Child Health J. 2010 Jan;14(1):9-19. doi: 10.1007/s10995-009-0484-z. Epub 2009 Aug 22.