Suppr超能文献

患者及照护者参与情况以及质性研究在核心结局集制定中的应用综述。

A review of patient and carer participation and the use of qualitative research in the development of core outcome sets.

作者信息

Jones Janet E, Jones Laura L, Keeley Thomas J H, Calvert Melanie J, Mathers Jonathan

机构信息

Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.

Parexel International, Evergreen Building, London, United Kingdom.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2017 Mar 16;12(3):e0172937. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172937. eCollection 2017.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

To be meaningful, a core outcome set (COS) should be relevant to all stakeholders including patients and carers. This review aimed to explore the methods by which patients and carers have been included as participants in COS development exercises and, in particular, the use and reporting of qualitative methods.

METHODS

In August 2015, a search of the Core Outcomes Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database was undertaken to identify papers involving patients and carers in COS development. Data were extracted to identify the data collection methods used in COS development, the number of health professionals, patients and carers participating in these, and the reported details of qualitative research undertaken.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine papers reporting patient and carer participation were included in the review, ten of which reported using qualitative methods. Although patients and carers participated in outcome elicitation for inclusion in COS processes, health professionals tended to dominate the prioritisation exercises. Of the ten qualitative papers, only three were reported as a clear pre-designed part of a COS process. Qualitative data were collected using interviews, focus groups or a combination of these. None of the qualitative papers reported an underpinning methodological framework and details regarding data saturation, reflexivity and resource use associated with data collection were often poorly reported. Five papers reported difficulty in achieving a diverse sample of participants and two reported that a large and varied range of outcomes were often identified by participants making subsequent rating and ranking difficult.

CONCLUSIONS

Consideration of the best way to include patients and carers throughout the COS development process is needed. Additionally, further work is required to assess the potential role of qualitative methods in COS, to explore the knowledge produced by different qualitative data collection methods, and to evaluate the time and resources required to incorporate qualitative methods into COS development.

摘要

背景

一个核心结局集(COS)若要有意义,就应与包括患者及照护者在内的所有利益相关者相关。本综述旨在探究将患者及照护者纳入核心结局集制定活动参与者的方法,尤其是定性方法的使用及报告情况。

方法

2015年8月,检索了有效性试验中的核心结局指标(COMET)数据库,以识别在核心结局集制定过程中涉及患者及照护者的论文。提取数据以确定核心结局集制定过程中使用的数据收集方法、参与其中的卫生专业人员、患者及照护者的数量,以及所开展定性研究的报告细节。

结果

本综述纳入了59篇报告患者及照护者参与情况的论文,其中10篇报告使用了定性方法。尽管患者及照护者参与了结局征集以纳入核心结局集制定过程,但卫生专业人员在优先级确定活动中往往占据主导地位。在这10篇定性研究论文中,只有3篇被报告为核心结局集制定过程中明确预先设计的一部分。定性数据通过访谈、焦点小组或两者结合的方式收集。没有一篇定性研究论文报告有支撑的方法框架,且与数据收集相关的数据饱和度、反思性及资源使用的细节往往报告不足。5篇论文报告难以获得多样化的参与者样本,2篇报告称参与者常常识别出大量且多样的结局,使得后续的评分和排序变得困难。

结论

需要考虑在整个核心结局集制定过程中纳入患者及照护者的最佳方式。此外,还需要进一步开展工作,以评估定性方法在核心结局集中的潜在作用,探索不同定性数据收集方法所产生的知识,并评估将定性方法纳入核心结局集制定所需的时间和资源。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ecdc/5354261/243bff0f3dce/pone.0172937.g001.jpg

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