Suppr超能文献

卫生服务研究中普通民众参与定性数据分析:一项描述性研究。

Lay involvement in the analysis of qualitative data in health services research: a descriptive study.

作者信息

Garfield S, Jheeta S, Husson F, Jacklin A, Bischler A, Norton C, Franklin B D

机构信息

1Centre for Medication Safety and Service Quality, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.

2Research Department of Practice and Policy, UCL School of Pharmacy, Mezzanine Floor, BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, UK.

出版信息

Res Involv Engagem. 2016 Aug 20;2:29. doi: 10.1186/s40900-016-0041-z. eCollection 2016.

Abstract

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

There is a consensus that patients and the public should be involved in research in a meaningful way. However, to date, lay people have been mostly involved in developing research ideas and commenting on patient information.We previously published a paper describing our experience with lay partners conducting observations in a study of how patients in hospital are involved with their medicines. In a later part of the same study, lay partners were also involved in analysing interviews that a researcher had conducted with patients, carers and healthcare professionals about patient and carer involvement with medicines in hospital. We therefore wanted to build on our previous paper and report on our experiences with lay partners helping to conduct data analysis. We therefore interviewed the lay members and researchers involved in the analysis to find out their views.Both lay members and researchers reported that lay partners added value to the study by bringing their own perspectives and identifying further areas for the researcher to look for in the interviews. In this way researchers and lay partners were able to work together to produce a richer analysis than would have been possible from either alone.

ABSTRACT

It is recognised that involving lay people in research in a meaningful rather than tokenistic way is both important and challenging. In this paper, we contribute to this debate by describing our experiences of lay involvement in data analysis. We conducted semi-structured interviews with the lay partners and researchers involved in qualitative data analysis in a wider study of inpatient involvement in medication safety. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded using open thematic analysis. We interviewed three lay partners and the three researchers involved. These interviews demonstrated that the lay members added value to the analysis by bringing their own perspectives; these were systematically integrated into the analysis by the lead researcher to create a synergistic output. Some challenges arose, including difficulties in recruiting a diverse range of members of the public to carry out the role; however there were generally fewer challenges in data analysis than there had been with our previous experience of lay partners' involvement in data collection. Lay members can add value to health services research by being involved in qualitative data analysis.

摘要

通俗易懂的总结

人们普遍认为患者和公众应以有意义的方式参与研究。然而,迄今为止,外行人大多参与了研究想法的提出以及对患者信息的评论。我们之前发表过一篇论文,描述了我们在外行人伙伴参与一项关于住院患者如何使用药物的研究观察中的经验。在同一研究的后期,外行人伙伴还参与了对一名研究人员与患者、护理人员及医疗保健专业人员就住院患者和护理人员使用药物情况所进行访谈的分析。因此,我们希望在之前论文的基础上,报告我们在外行人伙伴协助进行数据分析方面的经验。于是,我们采访了参与分析的外行人成员和研究人员,以了解他们的看法。外行人成员和研究人员均表示,外行人伙伴通过带来自身观点并指出研究人员在访谈中可进一步探索的领域,为研究增添了价值。通过这种方式,研究人员和外行人伙伴能够共同努力,得出比任何一方单独进行研究更丰富的分析结果。

摘要

人们认识到,让外行人以有意义而非象征性的方式参与研究既重要又具有挑战性。在本文中,我们通过描述外行人参与数据分析的经验,为这一辩论做出贡献。在一项关于住院患者药物安全参与情况的更广泛研究中,我们对参与定性数据分析的外行人伙伴和研究人员进行了半结构化访谈。访谈内容逐字记录,并使用开放式主题分析法进行编码。我们采访了三名外行人伙伴和三名研究人员。这些访谈表明,外行人成员通过带来自身观点为分析增添了价值;首席研究人员将这些观点系统地整合到分析中,以产生协同效应。出现了一些挑战,包括难以招募到具有广泛代表性的公众成员来履行这一职责;然而,与我们之前外行人伙伴参与数据收集的经验相比,数据分析中的挑战总体较少。外行人成员参与定性数据分析可为卫生服务研究增添价值。

相似文献

1
Lay involvement in the analysis of qualitative data in health services research: a descriptive study.
Res Involv Engagem. 2016 Aug 20;2:29. doi: 10.1186/s40900-016-0041-z. eCollection 2016.
2
Patient and public involvement in data collection for health services research: a descriptive study.
Res Involv Engagem. 2015 Aug 7;1:8. doi: 10.1186/s40900-015-0006-7. eCollection 2015.
3
Involving service users in the qualitative analysis of patient narratives to support healthcare quality improvement.
Res Involv Engagem. 2019 Jan 3;5:1. doi: 10.1186/s40900-018-0133-z. eCollection 2019.
4
Reflections on qualitative data analysis training for PPI partners and its implementation into practice.
Res Involv Engagem. 2019 Aug 14;5:22. doi: 10.1186/s40900-019-0156-0. eCollection 2019.
5
Working together: reflections on how to make public involvement in research work.
Res Involv Engagem. 2023 Mar 25;9(1):14. doi: 10.1186/s40900-023-00427-4.
10
Working together in health research: a mixed-methods patient engagement evaluation.
Res Involv Engagem. 2023 Aug 1;9(1):62. doi: 10.1186/s40900-023-00475-w.

引用本文的文献

4
Patient and public involvement in research published in the 2015-2021: A scoping review.
Br J Occup Ther. 2023 Jun;86(6):400-412. doi: 10.1177/03080226231165374. Epub 2023 Apr 12.
6
Low-dose amitriptyline for irritable bowel syndrome: a qualitative study of patients' and GPs' views and experiences.
Br J Gen Pract. 2025 May 29;75(755):e431-e439. doi: 10.3399/BJGP.2024.0303. Print 2025 Jun.

本文引用的文献

1
Patient and public involvement in data collection for health services research: a descriptive study.
Res Involv Engagem. 2015 Aug 7;1:8. doi: 10.1186/s40900-015-0006-7. eCollection 2015.
2
The Role of Hospital Inpatients in Supporting Medication Safety: A Qualitative Study.
PLoS One. 2016 Apr 19;11(4):e0153721. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153721. eCollection 2016.
5
Patient engagement in research: a systematic review.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Feb 26;14:89. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-89.
6
Hearing the voices of service user researchers in collaborative qualitative data analysis: the case for multiple coding.
Health Expect. 2013 Dec;16(4):e89-99. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00810.x. Epub 2012 Sep 7.
8
PPI, paradoxes and Plato: who's sailing the ship?
J Med Ethics. 2013 Mar;39(3):181-5. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2011-100150. Epub 2012 Jan 20.
9
Patients as team members: opportunities, challenges and paradoxes of including patients in multi-professional healthcare teams.
Sociol Health Illn. 2011 Nov;33(7):1050-65. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2011.01356.x. Epub 2011 Jun 10.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验