Lander Jonas, Haack Marius, Dierks Marie-Luise
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Institut für Epidemiologie, Sozialmedizin und Gesundheitssystemforschung, Hannover, Deutschland.
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Institut für Epidemiologie, Sozialmedizin und Gesundheitssystemforschung, Hannover, Deutschland; Landesvereinigung für Gesundheit und Akademie für Sozialmedizin Niedersachsen e.V., Hannover, Deutschland.
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2020 Nov;156-157:89-99. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2020.08.004. Epub 2020 Oct 11.
In recent years, the reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in health-related research has gained significantly in importance. However, little attention is being paid to the selection of target groups or participating citizens and patients. Individual contributions already point out that the selection is often described in a complex but ambiguous way; for example, individual groups are often not sufficiently differentiated from each other. The aim of our study is to provide an overview of the main topics, questions and challenges that are specific to the selection of participants in PPI by means of an explorative sample of different PPI documents (studies with PPI, studies on PPI, PPI guidelines, PPI websites, PPI journals). Based on this overview, we will make recommendations to help authors of studies and other relevant stakeholders in the planning, implementation and reporting of participant selection.
First, the explorative sample of the above-mentioned PPI documents was identified by conducting a systematic database and online search. A total of 46 documents were taken into account, including 11 studies with PPI, 12 studies on PPI, 12 guidelines, 6 websites and 5 journals. Relevant text passages were extracted from each of them and evaluated using deductively and inductively developed topic-specific categories.
Overall, the selected PPI documents significantly vary a) in the use of terms, b) in the detailing of the individual aspects of participant selection, and c) in the description of the planning and implementation of participant selection. For the latter, there is usually a lack of systematic, comprehensive explanations, e. g., on how to weigh up a relevant number of participants, on objectives and methods in the selection process and on how to prepare participants.
The various documents about and contributions to the topic of PPI should, in future, report more transparently and systematically on the selection of participants, especially to create practical added value for authors of studies. This includes, in particular, the description of the selection (studies with PPI), a complete overview of all relevant steps of the selection process (PPI guidelines), recommendations on how to deal with representativeness (studies on PPI), notes on reporting PPI (journals) as well as overviews of individual steps of the implementation process (PPI websites).
近年来,患者及公众参与(PPI)健康相关研究的报道变得越发重要。然而,对于目标群体或参与的公民及患者的选择却很少受到关注。已有个人研究指出,这种选择的描述往往复杂且含混不清;例如,各个群体之间常常没有得到充分区分。我们研究的目的是,通过对不同PPI文档(有PPI参与的研究、关于PPI的研究、PPI指南、PPI网站、PPI期刊)进行探索性抽样,概述PPI参与者选择所特有的主要主题、问题及挑战。基于这一概述,我们将提出建议,以帮助研究作者及其他相关利益相关者在参与者选择的规划、实施及报告方面提供帮助。
首先,通过系统的数据库及在线搜索确定上述PPI文档的探索性样本。总共考虑了46份文档,包括11项有PPI参与的研究、12项关于PPI的研究、12份指南、6个网站及5种期刊。从每份文档中提取相关文本段落,并使用演绎和归纳得出的特定主题类别进行评估。
总体而言,所选的PPI文档在以下方面存在显著差异:a)术语的使用;b)参与者选择各个方面的详细程度;c)参与者选择规划与实施的描述。对于后者,通常缺乏系统、全面的解释,例如,关于如何权衡相关数量的参与者、选择过程中的目标和方法以及如何让参与者做好准备。
未来,关于PPI主题的各种文档及贡献应更透明、系统地报告参与者的选择,特别是为研究作者创造实际的附加价值。这尤其包括选择的描述(有PPI参与的研究)、选择过程所有相关步骤的完整概述(PPI指南)、关于如何处理代表性的建议(关于PPI的研究)、PPI报告注释(期刊)以及实施过程各个步骤的概述(PPI网站)。