Suppr超能文献

多部门合作的预防自杀干预措施的混合方法系统评价

A mixed-methods systematic review of suicide prevention interventions involving multisectoral collaborations.

机构信息

School of Health, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia.

Public Health, Policy and Systems, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.

出版信息

Health Res Policy Syst. 2022 Apr 14;20(1):40. doi: 10.1186/s12961-022-00835-0.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Governments and third-sector organizations (TSOs) require support to reduce suicide mortality through funding of suicide prevention services and innovative research. One way is for researchers to engage individuals and services in multisectoral collaborations, to collaboratively design, develop and test suicide prevention services and programmes. However, despite widespread support, to date, it remains unclear as to the extent to which stakeholders are being included in the research process, or if they are, how these partnerships occur in practice. To address this gap, the authors conducted a systematic review with the aim of identifying evidence of multisectoral collaborations within the field of suicide prevention, the types of stakeholders involved and their level of involvement.

METHODS

The authors conducted a strategic PRISMA-compliant search of five electronic databases to retrieve literature published between January 2008 and July 2021. Hand-searching of reference lists of key systematic reviews was also completed. Of the 7937 papers retrieved, 16 papers finally met the inclusion criteria. Because of data heterogeneity, no meta-analysis was performed; however, the methodological quality of the included studies was assessed.

RESULTS

Only one paper included engagement of stakeholders across the research cycle (co-ideation, co-design, co-implementation and co-evaluation). Most stakeholders were represented by citizens or communities, with only a small number of TSOs involved in multisectoral collaborations. Stakeholder level of involvement focused on the co-design or co-evaluation stage.

CONCLUSION

This review revealed a lack of evidence of multisectoral collaborations being established between researchers and stakeholders in the field of suicide prevention research, even while such practice is being espoused in government policies and funding guidelines. Of the evidence that is available, there is a lack of quality studies documenting the collaborative research process. Also, results showed that the inclusion of co-researchers from communities or organizations is defined as co-creation, but further analysis revealed that collaboration was not consistent across the duration of projects. Researchers and practitioners should consider issues of power and equity in multisectoral collaborations and encourage increased engagement with TSOs, to rigorously research and evaluate suicide prevention services.

摘要

背景

政府和第三部门组织(TSO)需要支持,通过资助预防自杀服务和创新研究来降低自杀死亡率。一种方法是让研究人员让个人和服务机构参与多部门合作,共同设计、开发和测试预防自杀服务和计划。然而,尽管得到了广泛的支持,但迄今为止,仍不清楚利益相关者在研究过程中被纳入的程度,或者如果他们被纳入,这些伙伴关系是如何在实践中发生的。为了解决这一差距,作者进行了一项系统综述,旨在确定预防自杀领域内多部门合作的证据、涉及的利益相关者类型及其参与程度。

方法

作者进行了一项符合 PRISMA 策略的系统检索,以检索 2008 年 1 月至 2021 年 7 月期间发表的文献。还对手册中关键系统综述的参考文献进行了手工搜索。在检索到的 7937 篇论文中,最终有 16 篇论文符合纳入标准。由于数据异质性,没有进行荟萃分析;然而,对纳入研究的方法学质量进行了评估。

结果

只有一篇论文涉及研究周期内的利益相关者参与(共同构思、共同设计、共同实施和共同评估)。大多数利益相关者由公民或社区代表,只有少数 TSO 参与多部门合作。利益相关者的参与程度侧重于共同设计或共同评估阶段。

结论

这项综述表明,在预防自杀研究领域,研究人员和利益相关者之间建立多部门合作的证据很少,尽管政府政策和资助指南都支持这种做法。现有的证据中,缺乏记录合作研究过程的高质量研究。此外,结果表明,从社区或组织中纳入共同研究人员被定义为共同创造,但进一步分析表明,合作在项目持续时间内并不一致。研究人员和从业者应该考虑多部门合作中的权力和公平问题,并鼓励更多地与 TSO 合作,以严格研究和评估预防自杀服务。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验