• 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

患者对共同设计的康复干预措施的体验:快速综述方案。

Patient experiences of co-designed rehabilitation interventions: protocol for a rapid review.

机构信息

Physiotherapy, The Victorian Rehabilitation Centre, Glen Waverley, Victoria, Australia.

Academic and Research Collaborative in Health (ARCH), La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2022 Jan 31;12(1):e056927. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056927.

DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056927
PMID:35105653
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8808383/
Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Patient-centred care can be facilitated by co-design, which refers to collaboration between healthcare professionals and consumers in producing and implementing healthcare. Systematic reviews on co-design have mainly focused on the effectiveness of co-produced healthcare interventions. Less attention has been directed towards the experiences of patients in co-designed interventions. This rapid review aims to explore patient experiences of co-designed rehabilitation interventions and inform rehabilitation decision-making.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A rapid review will expedite timely information on co-design experiences for stakeholders. Four electronic databases, including Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL, will be searched for papers published from 1 January 2000 to 1 January 2022. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool will be used for randomised trials. Critical appraisal checklists from The Joanna Briggs Institute shall evaluate the risk of bias of non-randomised trials and qualitative studies. A narrative synthesis will be provided for the quantitative studies. Thematic synthesis will be conducted on qualitative findings. The overall strength of the evidence will be measured using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework for quantitative investigations and the GRADE-Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research for qualitative studies. The results will be presented using narrative summaries, identified themes, summary tables, flow charts and quantitative statistical analyses.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required for the review. The protocol and rapid review will be submitted to an online, open access and peer-reviewed journal for publication. The review findings will be rapidly translated to consumers, clinicians, healthcare leaders, organisations, researchers and policy makers via publications, evidence summaries, conferences, workshops, websites, social media and online events.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021264547.

摘要

简介

以患者为中心的护理可以通过共同设计来实现,共同设计是指医疗保健专业人员和消费者在生产和实施医疗保健方面的合作。关于共同设计的系统评价主要集中在共同制作的医疗干预措施的有效性上。对于患者在共同设计的干预措施中的体验,关注较少。本快速审查旨在探讨患者对共同设计的康复干预措施的体验,并为康复决策提供信息。

方法与分析

快速审查将加快为利益相关者提供有关共同设计经验的及时信息。将从 2000 年 1 月 1 日至 2022 年 1 月 1 日,在四个电子数据库 Cochrane CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase 和 CINAHL 中搜索论文。Cochrane 偏倚风险工具将用于随机试验。来自 Joanna Briggs 研究所的批判性评价清单将评估非随机试验和定性研究的偏倚风险。定量研究将提供叙述性综合,定性研究将进行主题综合。将使用推荐评估、制定和评估 (GRADE) 框架对定量研究进行证据整体强度测量,对定性研究使用 GRADE-来自定性研究的证据信心进行评估。结果将通过叙述性摘要、确定的主题、总结表、流程图和定量统计分析呈现。

伦理与传播

审查不需要伦理批准。该方案和快速审查将提交给在线、开放获取和同行评审的期刊出版。审查结果将通过出版物、证据摘要、会议、研讨会、网站、社交媒体和在线活动,快速传达给消费者、临床医生、医疗保健领导者、组织、研究人员和政策制定者。

PROSPERO 注册号:CRD42021264547。

相似文献

1
Patient experiences of co-designed rehabilitation interventions: protocol for a rapid review.患者对共同设计的康复干预措施的体验:快速综述方案。
BMJ Open. 2022 Jan 31;12(1):e056927. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056927.
2
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
3
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
4
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.
5
Experiences and perspectives of healthcare professionals, patients and caregivers toward the serious illness conversation guide: protocol for a qualitative meta-synthesis.医疗保健专业人员、患者和护理人员对严重疾病对话指南的经验和观点:定性荟萃分析方案。
BMJ Open. 2023 Nov 27;13(11):e073171. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073171.
6
Promoting and supporting self-management for adults living in the community with physical chronic illness: A systematic review of the effectiveness and meaningfulness of the patient-practitioner encounter.促进和支持社区中患有慢性身体疾病的成年人进行自我管理:对医患互动的有效性和意义的系统评价。
JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2009;7(13):492-582. doi: 10.11124/01938924-200907130-00001.
7
Effectiveness of interventions on healthcare professionals' understanding and use of conscience: a systematic review protocol.干预措施对医疗保健专业人员理解和使用良心的效果:系统评价方案。
BMJ Open. 2022 Jul 27;12(7):e053880. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053880.
8
What do older people who have attempted suicide experience? Study protocol for a qualitative meta-synthesis among older adults, family caregivers and healthcare professionals.有过自杀未遂经历的老年人有哪些体验?一项对老年人、家庭照顾者和医疗保健专业人员进行定性元分析的研究方案。
BMJ Open. 2023 Dec 9;13(12):e074942. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-074942.
9
Identifying indicators sensitive to primary healthcare nurse practitioner practice: a review of systematic reviews protocol.识别对初级保健执业护士实践敏感的指标:系统评价方案综述
BMJ Open. 2021 Jan 6;11(1):e043213. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043213.
10
Health professionals' experience of teamwork education in acute hospital settings: a systematic review of qualitative literature.医疗专业人员在急症医院环境中团队合作教育的经验:对定性文献的系统综述
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Apr;14(4):96-137. doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-1843.

引用本文的文献

1
Patient experiences of codesigned rehabilitation interventions in hospitals: a rapid review.患者在医院参与康复干预的体验:快速综述。
BMJ Open. 2022 Nov 4;12(11):e068241. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068241.
2
Implementing PROMS for elective surgery patients: feasibility, response rate, degree of recovery and patient acceptability.对择期手术患者实施患者报告结局测量:可行性、回复率、恢复程度及患者可接受性。
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2022 Jul 7;6(1):73. doi: 10.1186/s41687-022-00483-6.

本文引用的文献

1
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.
2
Effectiveness of knowledge brokering and recommendation dissemination for influencing healthcare resource allocation decisions: A cluster randomised controlled implementation trial.知识经纪人与推荐传播对影响医疗资源配置决策的效果:一项集群随机对照实施试验。
PLoS Med. 2021 Oct 22;18(10):e1003833. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003833. eCollection 2021 Oct.
3
Rapid reviews: the pros and cons of an accelerated review process.快速综述:加速评审过程的利弊
Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2021 Jun 29;20(5):515-519. doi: 10.1093/eurjcn/zvab041.
4
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.PRISMA 2020 声明:系统评价报告的更新指南。
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.
5
Effectiveness of health consumer representative involvement in implementation of interventions to change health professional behaviour.卫生消费者代表参与实施干预措施以改变卫生专业人员行为的效果。
Int J Qual Health Care. 2021 Feb 20;33(1). doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzaa164.
6
Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews.考科蓝快速评价方法学组为快速评价提供循证指导。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Feb;130:13-22. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.007. Epub 2020 Oct 15.
7
Evaluating hospital tools and services that were co-produced with patients: A rapid review.评估与患者共同制定的医院工具和服务:快速审查。
Int J Qual Health Care. 2020 Jun 4;32(4):231-239. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzaa020.
8
Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews.健康领域的研究共同设计:综述快速概览。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2020 Feb 11;18(1):17. doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-0528-9.
9
What is rehabilitation? An empirical investigation leading to an evidence-based description.康复是什么?一项基于实证的调查研究。
Clin Rehabil. 2020 May;34(5):571-583. doi: 10.1177/0269215520905112. Epub 2020 Feb 10.
10
Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline.系统评价中不进行荟萃分析的综合 (SWiM):报告指南。
BMJ. 2020 Jan 16;368:l6890. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l6890.