Brütt Anna Levke, Meister Ramona, Bernges Tabea, Moritz Steffen, Härter Martin, Kriston Levente, Kühne Franziska
Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Institut und Poliklinik für Medizinische Psychologie, Hamburg, Germany; Universität Oldenburg, Department für Versorgungsforschung, Oldenburg, Germany.
Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Institut und Poliklinik für Medizinische Psychologie, Hamburg, Germany.
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2017 Nov;127-128:56-61. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2017.07.005. Epub 2017 Nov 10.
Patient involvement (PI) in research is increasingly required as a means to improve relevance and meaningfulness of research results. PI has been widely promoted by the National Institute for Health Research in England in the last years. In Germany, widespread involvement of patients in research is still missing. The methods used to realize PI have been developed mainly in English research contexts, and detailed information on how to involve patients in systematic reviews is rare. Therefore, the aim of the study was that patients contribute and prioritize clinically relevant outcomes to a systematic review on meta-cognitive interventions, and to evaluate a patient workshop as well as patients' perceptions of research involvement. Seven patients with experience in psychiatric care participated in our workshop. They focused on outcomes pre-defined in the review protocol (e.g., meta-cognitive or cognitive changes, symptomatology, quality of life), neglected other outcomes (like satisfaction with treatment, acceptability), and added relevant new ones (e.g., scope of action/autonomy, applicability). Altogether, they valued the explicit workshop participation positively. However, some suggested to involve patients at an earlier stage and to adapt the amount of information given. Further systematic reviews would benefit from the involvement of patients in the definition of other components of the review question (like patients or interventions), in the interpretation of key findings or in drafting a lay summary.
作为提高研究结果相关性和意义的一种手段，患者参与（PI）研究的需求日益增加。近年来，英国国家卫生研究院广泛推广了患者参与。在德国，患者广泛参与研究的情况仍然缺失。用于实现患者参与的方法主要是在英语研究背景下开发的，关于如何让患者参与系统评价的详细信息很少。因此，本研究的目的是让患者为一项关于元认知干预的系统评价贡献临床相关结局并对其进行优先级排序，并评估一个患者研讨会以及患者对研究参与的看法。七名有精神科护理经验的患者参加了我们的研讨会。他们关注综述方案中预先定义的结局（例如，元认知或认知变化、症状学、生活质量），忽略了其他结局（如对治疗的满意度、可接受性），并添加了相关的新结局（例如，行动范围/自主性、适用性）。总体而言，他们对明确的研讨会参与给予了积极评价。然而，一些人建议在更早阶段让患者参与，并调整所提供信息的数量。进一步的系统评价将受益于患者参与综述问题其他组成部分（如患者或干预措施）的定义、关键结果的解释或撰写非专业摘要。
