Postma L, Luchtenberg M L, Verhagen A A E, Maeckelberghe E L M
University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Beatrix Children's Hospital, Hanzeplein 1, Groningen, 9713 GZ, The Netherlands.
Res Involv Engagem. 2024 Sep 20;10(1):97. doi: 10.1186/s40900-024-00630-x.
Increasingly, researchers are involving children and young people in designing paediatric research agendas, but as far as we were able to determine, only one report exists on the academic impact of such an agenda. In our opinion, the importance of insight into the impact of research agendas designed together with children and young people cannot be overstated. The first aim of our study was therefore to develop a method to describe the academic impact of paediatric research agendas. Our second aim was to describe the academic impact of research agendas developed by involving children and young people.
We based our method on aspects of the Research Impact Framework developed by Kuruvilla and colleagues and the Payback Framework developed by Donovan and Hanney. We named it Descriptive Academic Impact Analysis of Paediatric Research Agendas, consisting of five steps: [1] Identification of paediatric research agendas, [2] Citation analysis, [3] Impact analysis, [4] Author assessment, and [5] Classification of the ease of determining traceability.
We included 31 paediatric research agendas that were designed by involving children and young people. These agendas were cited 517 times, ranging from 0 to 71 citations. A total of 131 new studies (25%) were published, ranging from 0 to 23 per paediatric research agenda, based on at least one of the research priorities from the agenda. Sixty studies (46%) were developed by at least one of the first, second, or last authors of the paediatric research agenda on which the studies were based. Based on their accessibility and the ease with which we could identify the studies as being agenda-based, we categorised 44 studies (34%) as easy, 62 studies (47%) as medium, and 25 studies (19%) as difficult to identify.
This study reports on the development of a method to describe the academic impact of paediatric research agendas and it offers insight into the impact of 31 such agendas. We recommend that our results be used as a guide for designing future paediatric research agendas, especially by including ways of tracing the academic impact of new studies concerning the agendas' research priorities.
越来越多的研究人员让儿童和青少年参与儿科研究议程的设计，但就我们所能确定的而言，关于此类议程的学术影响仅有一份报告。在我们看来，深入了解与儿童和青少年共同设计的研究议程的影响，其重要性再怎么强调也不为过。因此，我们研究的首要目标是开发一种方法来描述儿科研究议程的学术影响。我们的第二个目标是描述通过让儿童和青少年参与而制定的研究议程的学术影响。
我们的方法基于Kuruvilla及其同事开发的研究影响框架以及Donovan和Hanney开发的回报框架的各个方面。我们将其命名为儿科研究议程的描述性学术影响分析，包括五个步骤：[1]确定儿科研究议程，[2]引文分析，[3]影响分析，[4]作者评估，以及[5]确定可追溯性的难易程度分类。
我们纳入了31项由儿童和青少年参与设计的儿科研究议程。这些议程被引用了517次，引用次数从0到71次不等。基于议程中的至少一项研究重点，共发表了131项新研究（25%），每项儿科研究议程的新研究发表数量从0到23项不等。60项研究（46%）是由其基于的儿科研究议程的至少一位第一、第二或最后作者开展的。根据研究的可获取性以及我们将这些研究确定为基于议程的难易程度，我们将44项研究（34%）归类为容易识别，62项研究（47%）归类为中等，25项研究（19%）归类为难以识别。
本研究报告了一种描述儿科研究议程学术影响的方法的开发，并提供了对31项此类议程影响的见解。我们建议将我们的结果用作设计未来儿科研究议程的指南，特别是通过纳入追踪有关议程研究重点的新研究学术影响的方法。
