Suppr超能文献

一项在瑞士移植队列研究中比较患者和移植专家研究重点的全国性调查。

A National Survey Comparing Patients' and Transplant Professionals' Research Priorities in the Swiss Transplant Cohort Study.

机构信息

Department Public Health, Institute of Nursing Science, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Center Clinical Nursing Science, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

出版信息

Transpl Int. 2022 May 18;35:10255. doi: 10.3389/ti.2022.10255. eCollection 2022.

Abstract

We aimed to identify, assess, compare and map research priorities of patients and professionals in the Swiss Transplant Cohort Study. The project followed 3 steps. 1) Focus group interviews identified patients' ( = 22) research priorities. 2) A nationwide survey assessed and compared the priorities in 292 patients and 175 professionals. 3) Priorities were mapped to the 4 levels of Bronfenbrenner's ecological framework. The 13 research priorities (financial pressure, medication taking, continuity of care, emotional well-being, return to work, trustful relationships, person-centredness, organization of care, exercise and physical fitness, graft functioning, pregnancy, peer contact and public knowledge of transplantation), addressed all framework levels: patient ( = 7), micro ( = 3), meso ( = 2), and macro ( = 1). Comparing each group's top 10 priorities revealed that continuity of care received highest importance rating from both (92.2% patients, 92.5% professionals), with 3 more agreements between the groups. Otherwise, perspectives were more diverse than congruent: Patients emphasized patient level priorities (emotional well-being, graft functioning, return to work), professionals those on the meso level (continuity of care, organization of care). Patients' research priorities highlighted a need to expand research to the micro, meso and macro level. Discrepancies should be recognized to avoid understudying topics that are more important to professionals than to patients.

摘要

我们旨在确定、评估、比较和绘制瑞士移植队列研究中患者和专业人员的研究重点。该项目分三个步骤进行。1)焦点小组访谈确定了患者(= 22)的研究重点。2)一项全国性调查评估并比较了 292 名患者和 175 名专业人员的重点。3)重点被映射到布伦芬布伦纳生态框架的四个层次。这 13 个研究重点(经济压力、药物治疗、护理连续性、情绪健康、重返工作岗位、信任关系、以患者为中心、护理组织、运动和身体健康、移植物功能、怀孕、同伴接触和公众对移植的了解),涉及到所有框架层次:患者(= 7)、微观(= 3)、中观(= 2)和宏观(= 1)。比较每个组的前 10 个重点,发现连续性护理得到了两组最高的重视(92.2%的患者,92.5%的专业人员),其中有 3 个重点在两组之间达成一致。否则,观点更多的是多样化而不是一致:患者强调患者层面的重点(情绪健康、移植物功能、重返工作岗位),而专业人员则强调中观层面的重点(护理连续性、护理组织)。患者的研究重点强调需要将研究扩展到微观、中观和宏观层面。应认识到差异,以避免对专业人员比患者更重要的研究课题被忽视。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b115/9156624/79c5a7f87173/ti-35-10255-g001.jpg

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