Gaber Sophie Nadia, Guerrero Manuel, Rosenberg Lena
Faculty of Brain Sciences, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK; Department of Health Care Sciences, Marie Cederschiöld University College, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Women's and Children's Health, Healthcare Sciences and e-Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; Department of Bioethics and Medical Humanities, Faculty of Medicine, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Lancet. 2023 Nov;402 Suppl 1:S43. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)02097-4.
Participatory research approaches can potentially empower older adults and improve their quality of life and care. These include research designs, methods, and conceptual frameworks in collaboration with people directly involved and invested in the research and research outcomes. However, participatory research approaches have rarely been explored in long-term care facilities for older adults, such as nursing homes or residential care facilities. We aimed to provide increased understanding and recommendations about how participatory research approaches can be conceptualised and used in long-term care facilities for older adults.
Inspired by Noblit and Hare (1988) and the seven phases of the eMERGe guidelines (2019), we performed a meta-ethnography (synthesis of qualitative research). We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC, Sociological Abstracts, and Web of science in July 2021 and June 2022 for studies published between Jan 1, 2001, and June 27, 2022 (see appendix for search terms). We included peer-reviewed qualitative publications on participatory research approaches with older adults or staff in long-term care facilities, written in English. To promote rigour, a protocol was used with two authors independently screening the articles, reaching consensus through critical discussions with a third author, and using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist. We extracted data regarding types of participatory research approaches and themes. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021275187.
Ten of 1445 articles screened were included in the analysis. Using seven types of participatory research approaches, the included studies investigated experiences of approximately 153 residents and 99 staff from seven countries (Australia, Belgium, England, Guyana, Ireland, Sweden, and the Netherlands). We identified five themes, expressed as a conceptual model with recommendations: (1) participatory backdrop; (2) collaborative places; (3) seeking common ground and solidarity; (4) temporal considerations; and (5) empowerment, growth, and cultural change. We recommend researchers allow flexible time for the slow-paced progression and potentially unintended consequences of this emergent approach.
This meta-ethnography provides an international and systematic synthesis of a diverse group of small-scale qualitative studies, which are, however, limited by insufficient reporting of participants' age, gender, or ethnicity.
The Strategic Research Area in Health Care Science (SFO-V) at Karolinska Institutet and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare (FORTE).
参与式研究方法有可能增强老年人的权能，提高他们的生活质量和护理水平。这些方法包括与直接参与研究及研究成果并投入其中的人员合作的研究设计、方法和概念框架。然而，在养老院或寄宿护理机构等老年人长期护理设施中，参与式研究方法很少得到探索。我们旨在增进对如何在老年人长期护理设施中概念化和运用参与式研究方法的理解并提出建议。
受诺布利特和黑尔（1988年）以及eMERGe指南（2019年）的七个阶段启发，我们开展了一项元民族志研究（定性研究的综合）。我们于2021年7月和2022年6月在MEDLINE、CINAHL、ERIC、社会学文摘数据库和科学网中检索了2001年1月1日至2022年6月27日期间发表的研究（检索词见附录）。我们纳入了用英文撰写的、经同行评审的关于老年人或长期护理设施工作人员参与式研究方法的定性出版物。为确保严谨性，我们采用了一个方案，由两位作者独立筛选文章，通过与第三位作者进行批判性讨论达成共识，并使用批判性评估技能计划（CASP）清单。我们提取了关于参与式研究方法类型和主题的数据。本研究已在国际前瞻性系统评价注册库（PROSPERO）注册，注册号为CRD42021275187。
在筛选的1445篇文章中，有10篇被纳入分析。纳入的研究采用了七种参与式研究方法，调查了来自七个国家（澳大利亚、比利时、英格兰、圭亚那、爱尔兰、瑞典和荷兰）约153名居民和99名工作人员的经历。我们确定了五个主题，并以带有建议的概念模型表示：（1）参与背景；（2）协作场所；（3）寻求共同点和团结；（4）时间因素；（5）赋权、成长和文化变革。我们建议研究人员为这种新兴方法的缓慢推进和可能产生的意外后果留出灵活的时间。
这项元民族志研究对一组多样化的小规模定性研究进行了国际系统的综合，但这些研究受到参与者年龄、性别或种族报告不足的限制。
卡罗林斯卡学院的医疗保健科学战略研究领域（SFO-V）以及瑞典卫生、工作生活与福利研究理事会（FORTE）。
