Gibson Andy, Boddy Kate, Maguire Kath, Britten Nicky
Department of Health and Social Sciences, University of West England, Glenside Campus, Room 2G27, Bristol, UK.
NIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC), University of Exeter, Veysey Building, Salmon Pool Lane, Exeter, EX2 4SG UK.
Res Involv Engagem. 2015 Aug 20;1:10. doi: 10.1186/s40900-015-0010-y. eCollection 2015.
Within health services research in the UK, there has been growing interest in evidence-based medicine (EBM) and patient and public involvement (PPI) in research. These two movements have a common goal of improving the quality and transparency of clinical decision making. So far, there has been relatively little discussion about how these two movements might relate to each other, despite their common concern. Indeed, some in the PPI movement have expressed doubts about the implications of EBM for PPI because they worry that its emphasis on evidence from clinical trials marginalises the importance of a patient's individual experiences in clinical decision making. The purpose of this paper is to examine the potential for EBM and PPI to complement one another. We analysed the feedback of 10 members of the Peninsula Public Involvement Group (PenPIG) who attended EBM workshops. These workshops trained people in the basics of EBM and were primarily attended by health professionals. We used thematic analysis, a qualitative data analysis method, to explore the responses. We found that participation in the workshops appears to have increased the ability and confidence of members of the public to actively participate as both producers and consumers of research evidence. We conclude that there is an untapped potential for EBM and PPI to complement one another in their shared desire to improve the quality and transparency of clinical decision making.
Within the UK, health services research in the 1990s was marked by growing interest in evidence-based medicine (EBM) and in the potential of patient and public involvement (PPI) in research. However, there has been relatively little discussion of how these two developments might relate to each other, despite their common concern to improve the quality and transparency of clinical decision making. Indeed, some in the user involvement movement have expressed doubts about the implications of EBM for PPI. The purpose of this paper is to examine the potential for EBM and PPI to complement one another. We used a case study design. Fifteen EBM workshops, involving PPI members, were conducted between June 2010 and December 2014. All 13 lay participants, who attended the first five workshops, were asked to fill in a standard feedback proforma designed by a member of the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for the South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC) Public Involvement Group (PenPIG). Ten responses were received, and these were analysed thematically. Four themes emerged from the thematic analysis: research knowledge, research skills, shared clinical decision making and learning environment. Participation in the workshops appears to have increased the ability and confidence of members of the public to actively participate as both producers and consumers of research evidence. There is an untapped potential for EBM and PPI to complement one another in their shared desire to improve the quality and transparency of clinical decision making.
在英国的卫生服务研究中，循证医学（EBM）以及患者和公众参与研究（PPI）越来越受到关注。这两个动向有着共同目标，即提高临床决策的质量和透明度。到目前为止，尽管它们有着共同的关注点，但关于这两个动向如何相互关联的讨论相对较少。事实上，PPI运动中的一些人对循证医学对PPI的影响表示怀疑，因为他们担心循证医学对临床试验证据的强调会使患者个体经验在临床决策中的重要性被边缘化。本文的目的是探讨循证医学和患者及公众参与研究相互补充的潜力。我们分析了参加循证医学研讨会的半岛公众参与小组（PenPIG）10名成员的反馈。这些研讨会对人们进行循证医学基础知识培训，主要参与者是卫生专业人员。我们采用主题分析法（一种定性数据分析方法）来探究这些反馈。我们发现，参与研讨会似乎提高了公众作为研究证据的生产者和使用者积极参与的能力和信心。我们得出结论，在共同致力于提高临床决策的质量和透明度方面，循证医学和患者及公众参与研究存在尚未开发的相互补充的潜力。
在英国，20世纪90年代的卫生服务研究特点是对循证医学以及患者和公众参与研究的潜力兴趣日增。然而，尽管它们都关注提高临床决策的质量和透明度，但关于这两个发展如何相互关联的讨论相对较少。事实上，用户参与运动中的一些人对循证医学对患者及公众参与研究的影响表示怀疑。本文的目的是探讨循证医学和患者及公众参与研究相互补充的潜力。我们采用了案例研究设计。在2010年6月至2014年12月期间举办了15次涉及患者及公众参与研究成员的循证医学研讨会。要求参加前五次研讨会的所有13名非专业参与者填写由国家卫生研究院西南半岛应用健康研究与护理领导力合作中心（PenCLAHRC）公众参与小组（PenPIG）的一名成员设计的标准反馈表格。收到了10份回复，并对其进行了主题分析。主题分析产生了四个主题：研究知识、研究技能、共享临床决策和学习环境。参与研讨会似乎提高了公众作为研究证据的生产者和使用者积极参与的能力和信心。在共同致力于提高临床决策的质量和透明度方面，循证医学和患者及公众参与研究存在尚未开发的相互补充的潜力。
