Suppr超能文献

对研究伙伴关系的承诺的证据?两项网络审查的结果。

Evidence of commitment to research partnerships? Results of two web reviews.

机构信息

Faculty of Sciences, Université de Saint-Boniface, 200 ave de la Cathédrale, Winnipeg, MB, R2H 0H7, Canada.

Applied Research and Evaluation Consultant, 322 Al Bennett Rd. RR3, Centreville, NS B0P 1J0, Canada.

出版信息

Health Res Policy Syst. 2019 Jul 30;17(1):73. doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0475-5.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Partnerships between academic researchers and health system leadership are often promoted by health research funding agencies as an important strategy in helping ensure that funded research is relevant and the results used. While potential benefits of such partnerships have been identified, there is limited guidance in the scientific literature for either healthcare organisations or researchers on how to select, build and manage effective research partnerships. Our main research objective was to explore the health system perspective on partnerships with researchers with a focus on issues related to the design and organisation of the health system and services. Two structured web reviews were conducted as one component of this larger study.

METHODS

Two separate structured web reviews were conducted using structured data extraction tools. The first review focused on sites of health research bodies and those providing information on health system management and knowledge translation (n = 38) to identify what guidance to support partnerships might be available on websites commonly accessed by health leaders and researchers. The second reviewed sites from all health 'regions' in Canada (n = 64) to determine what criteria and standards were currently used in guiding decisions to engage in research partnerships; phone follow-up ensured all relevant information was collected.

RESULTS

Absence of guidance on partnerships between research institutions and health system leaders was found. In the first review, absence of guidance on research partnerships and knowledge coproduction was striking and in contrast with coverage of other forms of collaboration such as patient/community engagement. In the second review, little evidence of criteria and standards regarding research partnerships was found. Difficulties in finding appropriate contact information for those responsible for research and obtaining a response were commonly experienced.

CONCLUSION

Guidance related to health system partnerships with academic researchers is lacking on websites that should promote and support such collaborations. Health region websites provide little evidence of partnership criteria and often do not make contact information to research leaders within health systems readily available; this may hinder partnership development between health systems and academia.

摘要

背景

学术研究人员与卫生系统领导层之间的伙伴关系通常受到卫生研究资助机构的推崇,被视为一种重要策略,可以帮助确保资助研究具有相关性并能利用研究成果。尽管这种伙伴关系具有潜在的益处,但在科学文献中,针对医疗机构或研究人员,几乎没有关于如何选择、建立和管理有效的研究伙伴关系的指导。我们的主要研究目标是从卫生系统角度探讨与研究人员建立伙伴关系的问题,重点关注与卫生系统和服务的设计和组织相关的问题。这是一项更大研究的组成部分,我们进行了两次结构化的网络审查。

方法

我们使用结构化数据提取工具进行了两次独立的结构化网络审查。第一次审查侧重于卫生研究机构的网站和提供卫生系统管理和知识转化信息的网站(n=38),以确定卫生领导者和研究人员通常访问的网站上可能提供哪些支持伙伴关系的指导。第二次审查了加拿大所有卫生“地区”的网站(n=64),以确定目前在指导参与研究伙伴关系的决策时使用哪些标准和准则;通过电话跟进确保收集到所有相关信息。

结果

研究机构与卫生系统领导者之间的伙伴关系缺乏指导。在第一次审查中,研究伙伴关系和知识共同生产方面缺乏指导,这与其他形式的合作(如患者/社区参与)的报道形成鲜明对比。在第二次审查中,几乎没有发现与研究伙伴关系相关的标准和准则的证据。经常遇到难以找到负责研究的合适联系人并获得回复的困难。

结论

在应该促进和支持这种合作的网站上,缺乏与学术研究人员建立卫生系统伙伴关系相关的指导。卫生地区网站几乎没有提供伙伴关系标准的证据,并且通常不将卫生系统内的研究负责人的联系方式公开,这可能会阻碍卫生系统与学术界之间的伙伴关系发展。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

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