• 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

相似文献

1
Research priorities in health communication and participation: international survey of consumers and other stakeholders.健康沟通与参与方面的研究重点:消费者及其他利益相关者的国际调查
BMJ Open. 2018 May 8;8(5):e019481. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019481.
2
Selecting, refining and identifying priority Cochrane Reviews in health communication and participation in partnership with consumers and other stakeholders.选择、精炼和确定与消费者及其他利益攸关方合作的健康传播领域中的优先 Cochrane 综述。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2019 Apr 29;17(1):45. doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0444-z.
3
Mental health research priorities in Australia: a consumer and carer agenda.澳大利亚精神健康研究重点:以消费者和照顾者为中心的议程。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 Dec 12;16(1):119. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0395-9.
4
Consumer and carer perspectives in the development of a mental health research, treatment and teaching facility: A thematic analysis.消费者和护理人员对精神卫生研究、治疗及教学设施发展的看法:一项主题分析
J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2017 Sep;24(7):534-544. doi: 10.1111/jpm.12394. Epub 2017 Jun 29.
5
Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: developing an evidence-based approach.让消费者参与国民保健服务体系的研发议程设定:制定基于证据的方法。
Health Technol Assess. 2004 Apr;8(15):1-148, III-IV. doi: 10.3310/hta8150.
6
Identifying health and healthcare priorities in rural areas: A concept mapping study informed by consumers, health professionals and researchers.确定农村地区的健康和医疗保健重点:基于消费者、卫生专业人员和研究人员的概念映射研究。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2024 Aug 13;22(1):105. doi: 10.1186/s12961-024-01163-1.
7
Consumers' and health providers' views and perceptions of partnering to improve health services design, delivery and evaluation: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.消费者和卫生服务提供者对合作改善卫生服务设计、提供和评估的看法和认知:一项共同制定的定性证据综合研究。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Mar 14;3(3):CD013274. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013274.pub2.
8
The patient experience of patient-centered communication with nurses in the hospital setting: a qualitative systematic review protocol.医院环境中患者与护士以患者为中心的沟通体验:一项定性系统评价方案
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Jan;13(1):76-87. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1072.
9
Evaluation of the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group's systematic review priority-setting project.考科蓝消费者与传播小组系统评价优先级设定项目评估
Health Res Policy Syst. 2020 Sep 2;18(1):98. doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-00604-x.
10
A cross-sectional survey of mental health service users', carers' and professionals' priorities for patient safety in the United Kingdom.英国心理健康服务使用者、照顾者和专业人员的患者安全优先事项的横断面调查。
Health Expect. 2018 Dec;21(6):1085-1094. doi: 10.1111/hex.12805. Epub 2018 Aug 17.

引用本文的文献

1
Quick prioritization of Cochrane reviews on benign conditions of the prostate.快速对关于前列腺良性疾病的Cochrane系统评价进行优先级排序。
Cochrane Evid Synth Methods. 2023 Mar 27;1(2):e12002. doi: 10.1002/cesm.12002. eCollection 2023 Apr.
2
Virtual Simulation Tools for Communication Skills Training in Health Care Professionals: Literature Review.用于医疗保健专业人员沟通技能培训的虚拟模拟工具:文献综述
JMIR Med Educ. 2025 May 6;11:e63082. doi: 10.2196/63082.
3
The development and comparative effectiveness of a patient-centered pathology report for breast cancer care: a randomized clinical trial.以患者为中心的乳腺癌护理病理报告的开发与比较效果:一项随机临床试验。
Support Care Cancer. 2025 Mar 4;33(3):248. doi: 10.1007/s00520-025-09304-0.
4
[Communication as a strategic tool for person-centered care].[沟通作为以患者为中心的护理的战略工具]
An Sist Sanit Navar. 2024 Dec 27;47(3):e1106. doi: 10.23938/ASSN.1106.
5
Triadic Communication in Medical Encounters Including Individuals With Dementia: A Scoping Review.包括痴呆症患者在内的医疗问诊中的三元沟通:一项范围综述
Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2024;38(2):213-225. doi: 10.1097/WAD.0000000000000626. Epub 2024 May 30.
6
Kidney health for all: bridging the gap in kidney health education and literacy.人人享有肾脏健康:弥合肾脏健康教育和知识普及方面的差距。
J Bras Nefrol. 2022 Apr-Jun;44(2):134-142. doi: 10.1590/2175-8239-JBN-2022-0027en.
7
Kidney health for all: bridging the gap in kidney health education and literacy.人人享有肾脏健康:弥合肾脏健康教育和知识普及方面的差距。
Braz J Med Biol Res. 2022 May 16;55:e12161. doi: 10.1590/1414-431X2022e12161. eCollection 2022.
8
Kidney Health For All: Bridging the Gap in Kidney Health Education and Literacy.全民肾脏健康:弥合肾脏健康教育与知识差距
Kidney Med. 2022 Feb 20;4(3):100436. doi: 10.1016/j.xkme.2022.100436. eCollection 2022 Mar.
9
Kidney health for all: bridging the gap in kidney health education and literacy.全民肾脏健康:弥合肾脏健康教育与知识普及方面的差距。
Clin Kidney J. 2022 Feb 10;15(4):603-610. doi: 10.1093/ckj/sfac040. eCollection 2022 Apr.
10
Kidney Health for All: Bridging the Gap in Kidney Health Education and Literacy.全民肾脏健康:弥合肾脏健康教育与素养差距。
Am J Nephrol. 2022;53(2-3):87-95. doi: 10.1159/000522553. Epub 2022 Mar 14.

本文引用的文献

1
Interventions for improving medication-taking ability and adherence in older adults prescribed multiple medications.针对开具多种药物处方的老年人提高用药能力和依从性的干预措施。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 May 8;5(5):CD012419. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012419.pub2.
2
Identifying primary care patient safety research priorities in the UK: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.确定英国初级保健患者安全研究重点:詹姆斯·林德联盟优先事项设定合作项目
BMJ Open. 2018 Feb 28;8(2):e020870. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020870.
3
Erratum to: Patients', clinicians' and the research communities' priorities for treatment research: there is an important mismatch.《患者、临床医生及研究群体对治疗研究的优先事项:存在重大错配》勘误
Res Involv Engagem. 2015 Dec 23;1:14. doi: 10.1186/s40900-015-0014-7. eCollection 2015.
4
The SPARK Tool to prioritise questions for systematic reviews in health policy and systems research: development and initial validation.用于确定卫生政策与系统研究中系统评价问题优先级的SPARK工具:开发与初步验证
Health Res Policy Syst. 2017 Sep 4;15(1):77. doi: 10.1186/s12961-017-0242-4.
5
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.为面临医疗治疗或筛查决策的人们提供的决策辅助工具。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Apr 12;4(4):CD001431. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5.
6
Research priority setting in organ transplantation: a systematic review.器官移植中的研究优先级设定:一项系统综述
Transpl Int. 2017 Apr;30(4):327-343. doi: 10.1111/tri.12924. Epub 2017 Feb 21.
7
Automated telephone communication systems for preventive healthcare and management of long-term conditions.用于预防性医疗保健和长期病症管理的自动电话通信系统。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 14;12(12):CD009921. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009921.pub2.
8
From tokenism to empowerment: progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement.从象征主义到赋权:推动患者及公众参与医疗保健改善
BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Aug;25(8):626-32. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004839. Epub 2016 Mar 18.
9
Collaborative research and the co-production of knowledge for practice: an illustrative case study.协作研究与实践知识的共同生产:一个实例研究
Implement Sci. 2016 Feb 20;11:20. doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0383-9.
10
Dementia priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance: using patient and public involvement and the evidence base to inform the research agenda.与詹姆斯·林德联盟合作开展的痴呆症研究优先级设定:利用患者和公众参与以及证据基础为研究议程提供信息。
Age Ageing. 2015 Nov;44(6):985-93. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afv143.

健康沟通与参与方面的研究重点:消费者及其他利益相关者的国际调查

Research priorities in health communication and participation: international survey of consumers and other stakeholders.

作者信息

Synnot Anneliese, Bragge Peter, Lowe Dianne, Nunn Jack S, O'Sullivan Molly, Horvat Lidia, Tong Allison, Kay Debra, Ghersi Davina, McDonald Steve, Poole Naomi, Bourke Noni, Lannin Natasha, Vadasz Danny, Oliver Sandy, Carey Karen, Hill Sophie J

机构信息

Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2018 May 8;8(5):e019481. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019481.

DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019481
PMID:29739780
原文链接:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5942413/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To identify research priorities of consumers and other stakeholders to inform Cochrane Reviews in 'health communication and participation' (including such concepts as patient experience, shared decision-making and health literacy).

SETTING

International.

PARTICIPANTS

We included anyone with an interest in health communication and participation. Up to 151 participants (18-80 years; 117 female) across 12 countries took part, including 48 consumers (patients, carers, consumer representatives) and 75 professionals (health professionals, policymakers, researchers) (plus 25 people who identified as both).

DESIGN

Survey.

METHODS

We invited people to submit their research ideas via an online survey open for 4 weeks. Using inductive thematic analysis, we generated priority research topics, then classified these into broader themes.

RESULTS

Participants submitted 200 research ideas, which we grouped into 21 priority topics. Key research priorities included: insufficient consumer involvement in research (19 responses), 'official' health information is contradictory and hard to understand (18 responses), communication/coordination breakdowns in health services (15 responses), health information provision a low priority for health professionals (15 responses), insufficient eliciting of patient preferences (14 responses), health services poorly understand/implement patient-centred care (14 responses), lack of holistic care impacting healthcare quality and safety (13 responses) and inadequate consumer involvement in service design (11 responses). These priorities encompassed acute and community health settings, with implications for policy and research. Priority populations of interest included people from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, carers, and people with low educational attainment, or mental illness. Most frequently suggested interventions focused on training and cultural change activities for health services and health professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

Consumers and other stakeholders want research addressing structural and cultural challenges in health services (eg, lack of holistic, patient-centred, culturally safe care) and building health professionals' communication skills. Solutions should be devised in partnership with consumers, and focus on the needs of vulnerable groups.

摘要

目的

确定消费者和其他利益相关者的研究重点,以为循证医学评价提供有关“健康沟通与参与”(包括患者体验、共同决策和健康素养等概念)的信息。

背景

国际范围。

参与者

我们纳入了任何对健康沟通与参与感兴趣的人。来自12个国家的多达151名参与者(年龄在18至80岁之间;117名女性)参与其中,包括48名消费者(患者、护理人员、消费者代表)和75名专业人员(卫生专业人员、政策制定者、研究人员)(另外还有25人同时属于这两类)。

设计

调查。

方法

我们邀请人们通过一项为期4周的在线调查提交他们的研究想法。通过归纳主题分析,我们生成了优先研究主题,然后将这些主题归类为更宽泛的主题。

结果

参与者提交了200个研究想法,我们将其归为21个优先主题。主要研究重点包括:消费者在研究中的参与不足(19份反馈)、“官方”健康信息相互矛盾且难以理解(18份反馈)、卫生服务中的沟通/协调故障(15份反馈)、健康信息提供在卫生专业人员工作中未被列为优先事项(15份反馈)、对患者偏好的询问不足(14份反馈)、卫生服务对以患者为中心的护理理解/实施不足(14份反馈)、缺乏整体护理影响医疗质量和安全(13份反馈)以及消费者在服务设计中的参与不足(11份反馈)。这些重点涵盖了急性和社区卫生环境,对政策和研究均有影响。感兴趣的优先人群包括来自不同文化和语言背景的人、护理人员以及教育程度低或患有精神疾病的人。最常被建议的干预措施集中在针对卫生服务机构和卫生专业人员的培训及文化变革活动上。

结论

消费者和其他利益相关者希望开展研究,以应对卫生服务中的结构和文化挑战(例如缺乏整体的、以患者为中心的、文化上安全的护理)并提升卫生专业人员的沟通技能。应与消费者合作制定解决方案,并关注弱势群体的需求。