Suppr超能文献

关键利益相关者在界定、识别和展示卫生研究差距方面的观点和经验:一项定性研究

Key stakeholders' perspectives and experiences with defining, identifying and displaying gaps in health research: a qualitative study.

作者信息

Nyanchoka Linda, Tudur-Smith Catrin, Porcher Raphaël, Hren Darko

机构信息

Universite de Paris, Paris, Île-de-France, France

Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool Institute of Translational Medicine, Liverpool, UK.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2020 Nov 10;10(11):e039932. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039932.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Mapping the current body of evidence including what is missing helps provide a better understanding of what research is available, ongoing and needed and should be prioritised. Identifying research gaps can inform the design and conduct of health research by providing additional context information about the body of evidence in a given topic area. Despite the commonly used term 'research gap' in scientific literature, little is written on how to find a 'research gap' in the first place. Moreover, there is no clear methodological guidance to identify and display gaps.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore how key stakeholders define research gaps and characterise methods/practices used to identify and display gaps in health research to further advance efforts in this area.

DESIGN

This was an exploratory qualitative study using semistructured in-depth interviews. The study sample included the following stakeholder groups: researchers, funders, healthcare providers, patients/public and policy-makers. Interview transcripts were subjected to thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Among the 20 interviews conducted (20 participants), a variety of research gap definitions were expressed (ie, five main themes, including gaps in information, knowledge/evidence gaps, uncertainties, quality and patient perspective). We identified three main themes for methods used to identify gaps (primary, secondary and both primary and secondary) and finally six main themes for the methods to display gaps (forest plots, diagrams/illustrations, evidence maps, mega maps, 3IE gap maps and info graphics).

CONCLUSION

This study provides insights into issues related to defining research gaps and methods used to identify and display gaps in health research from the perspectives of key stakeholders involved in the process. Findings will be used to inform methodological guidance on identifying research gaps.

摘要

引言

梳理当前的证据体系,包括找出缺失的部分,有助于更好地理解现有、正在进行以及所需的研究,并确定其优先级。识别研究空白可为健康研究的设计和实施提供参考,通过提供给定主题领域证据体系的更多背景信息。尽管科学文献中常用“研究空白”一词,但关于如何首先找到“研究空白”的论述却很少。此外,对于识别和展示空白尚无明确的方法指导。

目的

本研究旨在探讨关键利益相关者如何定义研究空白,以及描述用于识别和展示健康研究空白的方法/实践,以进一步推动该领域的工作。

设计

这是一项采用半结构化深度访谈的探索性定性研究。研究样本包括以下利益相关者群体:研究人员、资助者、医疗服务提供者、患者/公众和政策制定者。访谈记录进行了主题分析。

结果

在进行的20次访谈(20名参与者)中,表达了多种研究空白的定义(即五个主要主题,包括信息空白、知识/证据空白、不确定性、质量和患者视角)。我们确定了用于识别空白方法的三个主要主题(初级、次级以及初级和次级兼用),最后确定了展示空白方法的六个主要主题(森林图、图表/插图、证据地图、巨型地图、3IE空白地图和信息图表)。

结论

本研究从参与该过程的关键利益相关者的角度,深入探讨了与定义健康研究空白以及识别和展示空白的方法相关的问题。研究结果将用于为识别研究空白的方法指导提供参考。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cf7c/7656956/3e92a2a1aec6/bmjopen-2020-039932f01.jpg

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