• 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
Perspectives and Experiences of Policy Makers, Researchers, Health Information Technology Professionals, and the Public on Evidence-Based Health Policies: Protocol for a Qualitative Study.政策制定者、研究人员、健康信息技术专业人员及公众对循证健康政策的观点与经验:一项定性研究方案
JMIR Res Protoc. 2020 Dec 17;9(12):e16268. doi: 10.2196/16268.
2
The Effectiveness of Integrated Care Pathways for Adults and Children in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review.综合护理路径在医疗环境中对成人和儿童的有效性:一项系统评价。
JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2009;7(3):80-129. doi: 10.11124/01938924-200907030-00001.
3
Avoiding and identifying errors in health technology assessment models: qualitative study and methodological review.避免和识别健康技术评估模型中的错误:定性研究和方法学综述。
Health Technol Assess. 2010 May;14(25):iii-iv, ix-xii, 1-107. doi: 10.3310/hta14250.
4
Patient-Oriented Research Competencies in Health (PORCH) for patients, healthcare providers, decision-makers and researchers: protocol of a scoping review.面向患者、医疗保健提供者、决策者和研究人员的健康患者导向研究能力(PORCH):系统评价方案。
Syst Rev. 2018 Jul 19;7(1):101. doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0762-1.
5
Experiences and attitudes towards evidence-informed policy-making among research and policy stakeholders in the Canadian agri-food public health sector.加拿大农业食品公共卫生部门研究与政策利益相关者对循证决策的经验与态度。
Zoonoses Public Health. 2014 Dec;61(8):581-9. doi: 10.1111/zph.12108. Epub 2014 Feb 15.
6
The use of evidence to guide decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic: divergent perspectives from a qualitative case study in British Columbia, Canada.利用证据在 COVID-19 大流行期间指导决策:来自加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚省的定性案例研究的不同观点。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2024 Jun 3;22(1):66. doi: 10.1186/s12961-024-01146-2.
7
American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement: oversight of clinical research.美国临床肿瘤学会政策声明:临床研究监督
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jun 15;21(12):2377-86. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.04.026. Epub 2003 Apr 29.
8
A Preliminary Conceptual Framework in Knowledge Translation and Health Information Technology for Transparency in Policy-Making (The KhITT Framework).用于政策制定透明度的知识转化与健康信息技术初步概念框架(KhITT框架)
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2019;257:293-297.
9
Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany.德国药品效益评估的程序和方法。
Eur J Health Econ. 2008 Nov;9 Suppl 1:5-29. doi: 10.1007/s10198-008-0122-5.
10
[Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany].[德国药品效益评估的程序和方法]
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2008 Dec;133 Suppl 7:S225-46. doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1100954. Epub 2008 Nov 25.

引用本文的文献

1
Process for Rapid Co-development of a Decision Aid Prototype for Population-wide Cancer Screening.针对全人群癌症筛查的决策辅助工具原型快速共同开发流程
Med Decis Making. 2025 Oct;45(7):775-793. doi: 10.1177/0272989X251346894. Epub 2025 Jul 14.
2
Purpose Formulation, Coalition Building, and Evidence Use in Public-Academic Partnerships: Web-Based Survey Study.公共-学术伙伴关系中的目标制定、联盟建设与证据应用:基于网络的调查研究
JMIR Hum Factors. 2022 Jan 5;9(1):e29288. doi: 10.2196/29288.

本文引用的文献

1
Improving the science and evidence base of disaster response: a policy research study.提升灾害应对的科学与证据基础:一项政策研究
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 May 2;19(1):274. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4102-5.
2
How was research engaged with and used in the development of 131 policy documents? Findings and measurement implications from a mixed methods study.研究如何参与并应用于 131 项政策文件的制定?一项混合方法研究的发现和衡量意义。
Implement Sci. 2019 Apr 30;14(1):44. doi: 10.1186/s13012-019-0886-2.
3
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.
4
How are evidence generation partnerships between researchers and policy-makers enacted in practice? A qualitative interview study.研究人员和政策制定者之间的循证生成伙伴关系如何在实践中实施?一项定性访谈研究。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2019 Apr 15;17(1):41. doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0441-2.
5
A Preliminary Conceptual Framework in Knowledge Translation and Health Information Technology for Transparency in Policy-Making (The KhITT Framework).用于政策制定透明度的知识转化与健康信息技术初步概念框架(KhITT框架)
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2019;257:293-297.
6
Editors' perspectives on the peer-review process in biomedical journals: protocol for a qualitative study.生物医学期刊同行评审过程的编辑观点:一项定性研究方案
BMJ Open. 2018 Oct 18;8(10):e020568. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020568.
7
A review of the process of knowledge transfer and use of evidence in reproductive and child health in Ghana.加纳生殖健康和儿童健康领域知识转移和利用证据的过程综述。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 Aug 3;16(1):75. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0350-9.
8
Evidence-Based Health Policy.循证卫生政策
N Engl J Med. 2017 Dec 21;377(25):2413-2415. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1709816.
9
Protocol of a scoping review on knowledge translation competencies.知识转化能力范围综述研究方案
Syst Rev. 2017 May 2;6(1):93. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0481-z.
10
Predicting data saturation in qualitative surveys with mathematical models from ecological research.用生态研究中的数学模型预测定性调查中的数据饱和。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Feb;82:71-78.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.10.001. Epub 2016 Oct 24.

政策制定者、研究人员、健康信息技术专业人员及公众对循证健康政策的观点与经验:一项定性研究方案

Perspectives and Experiences of Policy Makers, Researchers, Health Information Technology Professionals, and the Public on Evidence-Based Health Policies: Protocol for a Qualitative Study.

作者信息

Mallidou Anastasia, Dordunoo Dzifa, Borycki Elizabeth, Kushniruk Andre, Sadeghi-Yekta Kirsten, Fraser Julie, Asuri Sirisha

机构信息

School of Nursing, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.

School of Health Information Science, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.

出版信息

JMIR Res Protoc. 2020 Dec 17;9(12):e16268. doi: 10.2196/16268.

DOI:10.2196/16268
PMID:33331825
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7775201/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based health policy (EBHP) development is critical to the judicious use of public funds. EBHPs increase transparency, accountability, effectiveness, and efficiency of policies. Encouraging collaboration between researchers or knowledge producers and policy makers is important because both communities have distinct professional cultures, resulting in them working separately without understanding each other. Knowledge sharing is a complex process that requires understanding of cultural aspects that may reduce cultural differences and increase the use of common language. Health information technology (HIT) is a useful tool to increase knowledge translation, which may result in the transparent use of evidence and networking in developing EBHPs. Our vision is to leverage HIT tools for a better health system that includes digitalized, open source, evidence-based, and transparent ways for collaboration and development of robust mechanisms and for sharing of synthesized evidence with knowledge user-friendly forms.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to develop a conceptual framework on Knowledge translation and health Information Technology for Transparency (KhITT) in policy making and EBHPs (ie, the KhITT framework). The framework will be informed by the views of four key stakeholder groups (ie, policy makers, knowledge producers, HIT professionals, and the public) toward EBHP. The informants may also describe practices that demonstrate the EBHP development process and suggest technology platforms to enable this process.

METHODS

We propose an exploratory, descriptive qualitative study to take place in British Columbia, Canada, using in-depth semistructured interviews. To ensure data saturation and trustworthiness, we will use a nonprobability, purposive snowball sample of up to 15 eligible participants in each of the four stakeholder groups. We will analyze the data using content analysis.

RESULTS

The KhITT framework focuses on various stakeholders' perspectives to better understand their perceived needs and priorities in identifying issues with EBHP, in order to make informed recommendations. Ethics approval has been obtained by the harmonized Behavioural Research Ethics Board at the University of British Columbia. We anticipate that we will complete data collection and analysis by December 2020. Preliminary results will be published in summer 2021.

CONCLUSIONS

Our ultimate goal of this study is to develop a conceptual framework and describe the technology platforms that would enable the EBHP process. We anticipate that our rigorous content analysis will be able to produce insights and themes that are able to address our objectives, contribute to an in-depth understanding of the EBHP process within British Columbia, highlight all influential factors, explicitly disseminate and communicate the study results, identify issues with EBHP and provide informed recommendations to address them, and enhance efforts toward transparent EBHPs.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/16268.

摘要

背景

循证卫生政策(EBHP)的制定对于合理使用公共资金至关重要。循证卫生政策可提高政策的透明度、问责制、有效性和效率。鼓励研究人员或知识生产者与政策制定者之间的合作非常重要,因为这两个群体有着不同的专业文化,导致他们各自为政,互不理解。知识共享是一个复杂的过程,需要理解可能减少文化差异并增加共同语言使用的文化方面。卫生信息技术(HIT)是促进知识转化的有用工具,这可能会在循证卫生政策的制定中实现证据的透明使用和网络化。我们的愿景是利用卫生信息技术工具建立一个更好的卫生系统,该系统包括数字化、开源、循证且透明的协作与发展强大机制的方式,以及以知识用户友好的形式共享综合证据的方式。

目的

本研究的目的是制定一个关于政策制定和循证卫生政策中知识转化与卫生信息技术促进透明度(KhITT)的概念框架(即KhITT框架)。该框架将基于四个关键利益相关者群体(即政策制定者、知识生产者、卫生信息技术专业人员和公众)对循证卫生政策的看法。受访者还可能描述展示循证卫生政策制定过程的实践,并提出实现这一过程的技术平台。

方法

我们提议在加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚省进行一项探索性、描述性的定性研究,采用深入的半结构化访谈。为确保数据饱和和可信度,我们将在四个利益相关者群体中各使用一个不超过15名合格参与者的非概率性、目的性滚雪球样本。我们将使用内容分析法对数据进行分析。

结果

KhITT框架关注各利益相关者的观点以更好地理解他们在识别循证卫生政策问题时的感知需求和优先事项,从而提出明智的建议。不列颠哥伦比亚大学统一行为研究伦理委员会已获得伦理批准。我们预计将在2020年12月前完成数据收集和分析。初步结果将于[具体年份]夏季发表。

结论

本研究的最终目标是制定一个概念框架并描述能够推动循证卫生政策制定过程的技术平台。我们预计严格的内容分析将能够产生见解和主题,以实现我们的目标,有助于深入了解不列颠哥伦比亚省内的循证卫生政策制定过程,突出所有影响因素,明确传播和交流研究结果,识别循证卫生政策问题并提供明智的建议来解决这些问题,以及加强对透明循证卫生政策的努力。

国际注册报告识别号(IRRID):PRR1 - 10.2196/16268 。