• 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
What Does "Good" Community and Public Engagement Look Like? Developing Relationships With Community Members in Global Health Research.“良好的”社区和公众参与是什么样的?在全球健康研究中与社区成员建立关系。
Front Public Health. 2022 Jan 27;9:776940. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.776940. eCollection 2021.
2
Using the UK standards for public involvement to evaluate the public involvement sections of annual reports from NIHR managed research centres.使用英国公众参与标准来评估英国国家卫生研究院管理的研究中心年度报告中的公众参与部分。
Res Involv Engagem. 2023 Nov 30;9(1):109. doi: 10.1186/s40900-023-00517-3.
3
Community engagement and involvement in Ghana: conversations with community stakeholders to inform surgical research.加纳的社区参与:与社区利益相关者的对话,为外科研究提供信息。
Res Involv Engagem. 2021 Jul 5;7(1):50. doi: 10.1186/s40900-021-00270-5.
4
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.
5
Developing a toolkit for engagement practice: sharing power with communities in priority-setting for global health research projects.开发参与实践工具包:在全球卫生研究项目的优先事项设定中与社区分享权力。
BMC Med Ethics. 2020 Mar 14;21(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s12910-020-0462-y.
6
Recognising values and engaging communities across cultures: towards developing a cultural protocol for researchers.跨文化识别价值观和参与社区:制定研究人员文化规范的途径。
BMC Med Ethics. 2021 Apr 26;22(1):47. doi: 10.1186/s12910-021-00608-4.
7
National Standards for Public Involvement in Research: missing the forest for the trees.国家公众参与研究标准:只见树木不见森林。
J Med Ethics. 2018 Dec;44(12):801-804. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2018-105088. Epub 2018 Oct 18.
8
Learning to work together - lessons from a reflective analysis of a research project on public involvement.学会协同合作——一项关于公众参与的研究项目反思性分析的经验教训
Res Involv Engagem. 2017 Jan 9;3:1. doi: 10.1186/s40900-016-0051-x. eCollection 2017.
9
10
Strengthening capacity for community and public engagement (CPE): a mixed-methods evaluation of the 'DELTAS Africa CPE seed fund' pilot.加强社区与公众参与能力(CPE):对“非洲DELTAS CPE种子基金”试点项目的混合方法评估
Wellcome Open Res. 2022 Mar 17;7:96. doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17665.1. eCollection 2022.

引用本文的文献

1
Patient and public involvement and engagement to improve impact on antimicrobial resistance.患者和公众的参与及介入,以提高对抗菌药物耐药性的影响。
Nat Commun. 2025 Jan 25;16(1):1022. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-55410-8.
2
Bibliometric analysis of publications that cited the CIOMS 2016 "International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans".对引用国际医学科学组织委员会(CIOMS)2016年《涉及人类的健康相关研究国际伦理准则》的出版物的文献计量分析。
Heliyon. 2024 Aug 30;10(17):e36833. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36833. eCollection 2024 Sep 15.
3
Stakeholder engagement in the development of genetically modified mosquitoes for malaria control in West Africa: lessons learned from 10 years of Target Malaria's work in Mali.利益相关者参与西非转基因蚊子用于疟疾控制的研发:从目标疟疾在马里十年工作中吸取的经验教训。
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2024 Jan 5;11:1286694. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1286694. eCollection 2023.
4
Evidencing the effectiveness of upper limb prostheses: a multi-stakeholder perspective on study requirements.上肢假肢有效性的证据:多利益相关方对研究要求的看法。
Front Health Serv. 2023 Dec 21;3:1213752. doi: 10.3389/frhs.2023.1213752. eCollection 2023.
5
The "3 Ps" of EmPowerment, Partnership and Protection - Stakeholder Perceptions of Beneficial Outcomes of Engagement in HIV Prevention Trials.赋权、伙伴关系和保护的“3P”——利益相关者对参与艾滋病毒预防试验的有益结果的看法。
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2024 Feb;19(1-2):37-47. doi: 10.1177/15562646231221259. Epub 2023 Dec 17.
6
State of the Art of Participatory and User-led Research in Mental Health in Brazil: A Scoping Review.巴西心理健康领域参与式和用户主导研究的现状:一项范围综述
Glob Ment Health (Camb). 2023 Apr 5;10. doi: 10.1017/gmh.2023.12. eCollection 2023.
7
Co-production to understand online help-seeking for young people experiencing emotional abuse and neglect: Building capabilities, adapting research methodology and evaluating involvement and impact.共同创作以了解年轻人经历情感虐待和忽视时的在线求助:建立能力、调整研究方法以及评估参与度和影响。
Health Expect. 2022 Dec;25(6):3143-3163. doi: 10.1111/hex.13622. Epub 2022 Oct 10.

本文引用的文献

1
Editorial: Public Participation in Health Care: Exploring the Co-production of Knowledge.社论:公众参与医疗保健:探索知识的共同生产
Front Sociol. 2019 Nov 12;4:73. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2019.00073. eCollection 2019.
2
Effective engagement and involvement with community stakeholders in the co-production of global health research.有效吸引和参与社区利益攸关方共同开展全球卫生研究。
BMJ. 2021 Feb 15;372:n178. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n178.
3
The and underpinning community engagement approaches to tackling antimicrobial resistance (AMR).该报告强调了社区参与方法在解决抗菌素耐药性(AMR)方面的基础作用。
Glob Health Action. 2019 Dec 13;12(sup1):1837484. doi: 10.1080/16549716.2020.1837484.
4
Solidarity and Community Engagement in Global Health Research.全球健康研究中的团结与社区参与。
Am J Bioeth. 2020 Jun;20(5):43-56. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1745930.
5
Community engagement and ethical global health research.社区参与和符合伦理的全球健康研究。
Glob Bioeth. 2019 Dec 20;31(1):1-12. doi: 10.1080/11287462.2019.1703504. eCollection 2020.
6
Deconstructing the notion of "global health research partnerships" across Northern and African contexts.剖析非洲与北方地区背景下“全球卫生研究伙伴关系”的概念。
BMC Med Ethics. 2018 Jun 15;19(Suppl 1):49. doi: 10.1186/s12910-018-0280-7.
7
Constructing citizen engagement in health research priority-setting to attend to dynamics of power and difference.构建公民参与健康研究优先事项设定,以关注权力和差异动态。
Dev World Bioeth. 2019 Mar;19(1):45-60. doi: 10.1111/dewb.12197. Epub 2018 Jun 25.
8
Reflections on the ethics of participatory visual methods to engage communities in global health research.关于采用参与性视觉方法让社区参与全球健康研究的伦理思考。
Glob Bioeth. 2017 Dec 20;29(1):22-38. doi: 10.1080/11287462.2017.1415722. eCollection 2018.
9
Community engagement and the human infrastructure of global health research.社区参与与全球卫生研究的人力基础架构
BMC Med Ethics. 2014 Dec 13;15:84. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-15-84.
10
Ethical goals of community consultation in research.研究中社区咨询的伦理目标。
Am J Public Health. 2005 Jul;95(7):1123-7. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.058933. Epub 2005 Jun 16.

“良好的”社区和公众参与是什么样的?在全球健康研究中与社区成员建立关系。

What Does "Good" Community and Public Engagement Look Like? Developing Relationships With Community Members in Global Health Research.

机构信息

Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.

School of Health Sciences, University of Brighton, Brighton, United Kingdom.

出版信息

Front Public Health. 2022 Jan 27;9:776940. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.776940. eCollection 2021.

DOI:10.3389/fpubh.2021.776940
PMID:35155342
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8830293/
Abstract

Community and public engagement (CPE) is increasingly becoming a key component in global health research. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) is one of the leading funders in the UK of global health research and requires a robust CPE element in the research it funds, along with CPE monitoring and evaluation. But what does "good" CPE look like? And what factors facilitate or inhibit good CPE? Addressing these questions would help ensure clarity of expectations of award holders, and inform effective monitoring frameworks and the development of guidance. The work reported upon here builds on existing guidance and is a first step in trying to identify the key components of what "good" CPE looks like, which can be used for all approaches to global health research and in a range of different settings and contexts. This article draws on data collected as part of an evaluation of CPE by 53 NIHR-funded award holders to provide insights on CPE practice in global health research. This data was then debated, developed and refined by a group of researchers, CPE specialists and public contributors to explore what "good" CPE looks like, and the barriers and facilitators to good CPE. A key finding was the importance, for some research, of investing in and developing long term relationships with communities, perhaps beyond the life cycle of a project; this was regarded as crucial to the development of trust, addressing power differentials and ensuring the legacy of the research was of benefit to the community.

摘要

社区和公众参与(CPE)越来越成为全球健康研究的一个关键组成部分。英国国家卫生研究院(NIHR)是英国全球健康研究的主要资助者之一,要求其资助的研究具有强大的 CPE 要素,同时进行 CPE 监测和评估。但是,什么样的 CPE 才算“好”呢?哪些因素促进或阻碍了良好的 CPE?回答这些问题将有助于确保明确奖项获得者的期望,并为有效的监测框架和指导方针的制定提供信息。这里报告的工作是在现有指导方针的基础上进行的,是试图确定“良好”CPE 所具有的关键要素的第一步,这些要素可用于所有全球健康研究方法,并适用于各种不同的环境和背景。本文借鉴了对 53 名 NIHR 资助的奖项获得者进行 CPE 评估所收集的数据,以了解全球健康研究中 CPE 实践的情况。然后,一组研究人员、CPE 专家和公众参与者对这些数据进行了辩论、开发和完善,以探讨什么样的 CPE 才算“好”,以及促进和阻碍良好 CPE 的因素。一个重要发现是,对于某些研究而言,投资并与社区建立长期关系非常重要,这种关系可能会超越项目的生命周期;这被认为是建立信任、解决权力差异以及确保研究成果为社区带来利益的关键。