• 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

准备患者合作:患者伙伴参与和评估研究的范围综述。

Preparing for patient partnership: A scoping review of patient partner engagement and evaluation in research.

机构信息

Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

出版信息

Health Expect. 2020 Jun;23(3):523-539. doi: 10.1111/hex.13040. Epub 2020 Mar 10.

DOI:10.1111/hex.13040
PMID:32157777
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7321722/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Realizing patient partnership in research requires a shift from patient participation in ancillary roles to engagement as contributing members of research teams. While engaging patient partners is often discussed, impact is rarely measured.

OBJECTIVE

Our primary aim was to conduct a scoping review of the impact of patient partnership on research outcomes. The secondary aim was to describe barriers and facilitators to realizing effective partnerships.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A comprehensive bibliographic search was undertaken in EBSCO CINAHL, and Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO via Ovid. Reference lists of included articles were hand-searched.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Included studies were: (a) related to health care; (b) involved patients or proxies in the research process; and (c) reported results related to impact/evaluation of patient partnership on research outcomes.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted from 14 studies meeting inclusion criteria using a narrative synthesis approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Patient partners were involved in a range of research activities. Results highlight critical barriers and facilitators for researchers seeking to undertake patient partnerships to be aware of, such as power imbalances between patient partners and researchers, as well as valuing of patient partner roles.

DISCUSSION

Addressing power dynamics in patient partner-researcher relationships and mitigating risks to patient partners through inclusive recruitment and training strategies may contribute towards effective engagement. Further guidance is needed to address evaluation strategies for patient partnerships across the continuum of patient partner involvement in research.

CONCLUSIONS

Research teams can employ preparation strategies outlined in this review to support patient partnerships in their work.

摘要

背景

实现患者在研究中的合作伙伴关系需要从患者参与辅助角色转变为作为研究团队的贡献成员的参与。虽然经常讨论吸引患者伙伴,但很少衡量其影响。

目的

我们的主要目的是对患者伙伴关系对研究结果的影响进行范围综述。次要目的是描述实现有效伙伴关系的障碍和促进因素。

搜索策略

通过 Ovid 在 EBSCO CINAHL 以及 Embase、MEDLINE 和 PsycINFO 中进行了全面的文献检索。并对纳入文章的参考文献进行了手工检索。

纳入标准

纳入的研究包括:(a)与医疗保健相关;(b)在研究过程中涉及患者或其代理人;(c)报告与评估患者伙伴关系对研究结果的影响相关的结果。

数据提取和综合

使用叙述性综合方法从符合纳入标准的 14 项研究中提取数据。

主要结果

患者伙伴参与了一系列研究活动。结果突出了研究人员在寻求开展患者伙伴关系时需要注意的关键障碍和促进因素,例如患者伙伴和研究人员之间的权力不平衡,以及对患者伙伴角色的重视。

讨论

解决患者伙伴与研究人员关系中的权力动态,并通过包容性招募和培训策略减轻对患者伙伴的风险,可能有助于实现有效的参与。需要进一步的指导来解决患者伙伴参与研究的整个过程中对患者伙伴关系的评估策略。

结论

研究团队可以采用本综述中概述的准备策略来支持患者伙伴在其工作中的参与。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/10bd/7321722/8ecfb4ad59cc/HEX-23-523-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/10bd/7321722/8ecfb4ad59cc/HEX-23-523-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/10bd/7321722/8ecfb4ad59cc/HEX-23-523-g001.jpg

相似文献

1
Preparing for patient partnership: A scoping review of patient partner engagement and evaluation in research.准备患者合作:患者伙伴参与和评估研究的范围综述。
Health Expect. 2020 Jun;23(3):523-539. doi: 10.1111/hex.13040. Epub 2020 Mar 10.
2
Beyond the black stump: rapid reviews of health research issues affecting regional, rural and remote Australia.超越黑木树:影响澳大利亚地区、农村和偏远地区的健康研究问题的快速综述。
Med J Aust. 2020 Dec;213 Suppl 11:S3-S32.e1. doi: 10.5694/mja2.50881.
3
Patient Engagement Partnerships in Clinical Trials: Development of Patient Partner and Investigator Decision Aids.临床试验中的患者参与伙伴关系:患者伙伴和研究者决策辅助工具的开发。
Patient. 2020 Dec;13(6):745-756. doi: 10.1007/s40271-020-00460-5. Epub 2020 Oct 7.
4
Roles, outcomes, and enablers within research partnerships: A rapid review of the literature on patient and public involvement and engagement in health research.研究伙伴关系中的角色、成果与促进因素:关于患者及公众参与健康研究的文献快速综述
Res Involv Engagem. 2023 Jun 15;9(1):43. doi: 10.1186/s40900-023-00448-z.
5
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.
6
Patient and researcher experiences of patient engagement in primary care health care research: A participatory qualitative study.患者和研究人员对初级保健医疗研究中患者参与的体验:一项参与式定性研究。
Health Expect. 2022 Oct;25(5):2365-2376. doi: 10.1111/hex.13542. Epub 2022 Jul 22.
7
Lessons learned in measuring patient engagement in a Canada-wide childhood disability network.在加拿大全国性儿童残疾网络中衡量患者参与度所汲取的经验教训。
Res Involv Engagem. 2024 Feb 7;10(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s40900-024-00551-9.
8
The Bidirectional Engagement and Equity (BEE) Research Framework to Guide Community-Academic Partnerships: Developed From a Narrative Review and Diverse Stakeholder Perspectives.指导社区-学术伙伴关系的双向参与与公平(BEE)研究框架:基于叙事性综述和多元利益相关者视角制定
Health Expect. 2024 Aug;27(4):e14161. doi: 10.1111/hex.14161.
9
Youth engagement in research: exploring training needs of youth with neurodevelopmental disabilities.青少年参与研究:探索神经发育障碍青少年的培训需求。
Res Involv Engagem. 2023 Jul 10;9(1):50. doi: 10.1186/s40900-023-00452-3.
10
A scoping review to identify and describe the characteristics of theories, models and frameworks of health research partnerships.一项范围综述,旨在识别和描述健康研究伙伴关系的理论、模型和框架的特征。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2022 Jun 18;20(1):69. doi: 10.1186/s12961-022-00877-4.

引用本文的文献

1
Design Mapping: A Conceptual Framework for Co-Designing Evidence-Based Digital Mental Health Programs.设计映射:共同设计循证数字心理健康项目的概念框架。
Health Expect. 2025 Oct;28(5):e70385. doi: 10.1111/hex.70385.
2
Methods for engaging vulnerable and marginalized children through community based participatory research: a scoping review.通过基于社区的参与性研究让弱势和边缘化儿童参与进来的方法:一项范围综述
Res Involv Engagem. 2025 Aug 27;11(1):104. doi: 10.1186/s40900-025-00783-3.
3
Citizen science approaches in the development of post-stroke physical activity interventions: A scoping review.

本文引用的文献

1
Engaging patients in primary care design: An evaluation of a novel approach to codesigning care.让患者参与初级保健设计:对一种共同设计护理新方法的评估。
Health Expect. 2019 Aug;22(4):609-616. doi: 10.1111/hex.12909. Epub 2019 May 27.
2
"About sixty per cent I want to do it": Health researchers' attitudes to, and experiences of, patient and public involvement (PPI)-A qualitative interview study.“约60%的人表示愿意参与”:健康领域研究人员对患者及公众参与(PPI)的态度与经历——一项定性访谈研究
Health Expect. 2019 Aug;22(4):721-730. doi: 10.1111/hex.12883. Epub 2019 Mar 29.
3
Patient Engagement In Research: Early Findings From The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
中风后身体活动干预措施开发中的公民科学方法:一项范围综述。
PLoS One. 2025 Aug 20;20(8):e0329948. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0329948. eCollection 2025.
4
Engaging children, young adults, and other partners to identify priorities for sport related concussion research.让儿童、年轻人和其他合作伙伴参与,以确定与运动相关的脑震荡研究的优先事项。
Res Involv Engagem. 2025 Aug 15;11(1):96. doi: 10.1186/s40900-025-00765-5.
5
Social Participation When Aging With an Early-Onset Neurological Disability: Protocol for Descriptive Qualitative Research.患有早发性神经残疾的老年人的社会参与:描述性定性研究方案
JMIR Res Protoc. 2025 Aug 6;14:e66963. doi: 10.2196/66963.
6
How does integrated knowledge translation work? A realist review.整合性知识转化如何发挥作用?一项实在论综述。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2025 Aug 5;23(1):102. doi: 10.1186/s12961-025-01374-0.
7
How to become partners. Ways to enhance the quality of patient and public involvement in healthcare research.如何成为合作伙伴。提高患者和公众参与医疗保健研究质量的方法。
Qual Res Med Healthc. 2025 Jun 25;9(2):100016. doi: 10.1016/j.qrmh.2025.100016. eCollection 2025 Jul.
8
The ethics and economics of organoid commercialization: potential donors' perspectives.类器官商业化的伦理与经济学:潜在捐赠者的观点
BMC Med Ethics. 2025 Jul 29;26(1):109. doi: 10.1186/s12910-025-01269-3.
9
Engaging patient partners to identify research priorities for atrial fibrillation: Results from a patient engagement day.让患者合作伙伴参与确定房颤研究重点:患者参与日的结果
PEC Innov. 2025 Jun 27;7:100417. doi: 10.1016/j.pecinn.2025.100417. eCollection 2025 Dec.
10
Landscape of informed consent practices and challenges in point-of-care clinical trials.即时医疗临床试验中知情同意实践与挑战的概况
Learn Health Syst. 2025 Mar 3;9(3):e10467. doi: 10.1002/lrh2.10467. eCollection 2025 Jul.
患者参与研究:患者中心的结局研究所的初步发现。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2019 Mar;38(3):359-367. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05067.
4
Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis.患者和公众参与对临床试验入组和保留的影响:系统评价和荟萃分析。
BMJ. 2018 Nov 28;363:k4738. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k4738.
5
Development and pre-testing of the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) to assess the quality of engagement from a patient perspective.患者参与研究量表(PEIRS)的制定和预测试,以从患者角度评估参与的质量。
PLoS One. 2018 Nov 1;13(11):e0206588. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206588. eCollection 2018.
6
Co-Designing an eHealth Service for the Co-Care of Parkinson Disease: Explorative Study of Values and Challenges.共同设计帕金森病共同照护的电子健康服务:价值观与挑战的探索性研究
JMIR Res Protoc. 2018 Oct 30;7(10):e11278. doi: 10.2196/11278.
7
Metrics and Evaluation Tools for Patient Engagement in Healthcare Organization- and System-Level Decision-Making: A Systematic Review.用于医疗保健组织和系统决策中的患者参与度的度量和评估工具:系统评价。
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018 Oct 1;7(10):889-903. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2018.43.
8
Patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making: A systematic review of evaluation tools.患者和公众参与研究和卫生系统决策:评价工具的系统评价。
Health Expect. 2018 Dec;21(6):1075-1084. doi: 10.1111/hex.12804. Epub 2018 Jul 30.
9
Sharpening the focus: differentiating between focus groups for patient engagement vs. qualitative research.明确重点:区分用于患者参与的焦点小组与定性研究。
Res Involv Engagem. 2018 Jun 25;4:19. doi: 10.1186/s40900-018-0102-6. eCollection 2018.
10
Assessing the Financial Value of Patient Engagement: A Quantitative Approach from CTTI's Patient Groups and Clinical Trials Project.评估患者参与的财务价值:来自CTTI患者群体与临床试验项目的定量方法。
Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2018 Mar;52(2):220-229. doi: 10.1177/2168479017716715. Epub 2017 Jul 17.