• 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
[A qualitative interview study to streamline integration of patient participation in research].[一项旨在简化患者参与研究整合流程的定性访谈研究]
Gesundheitswesen. 2025 May;87(5):318-327. doi: 10.1055/a-2445-5498. Epub 2024 Oct 18.
2
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.
3
Attitudes and perceptions regarding knowledge translation and community engagement in medical research: the PERSPECT qualitative study.关于医学研究中知识转化与社区参与的态度和认知:PERSPECT定性研究
Health Res Policy Syst. 2025 Mar 3;23(1):29. doi: 10.1186/s12961-025-01306-y.
4
The Effectiveness of Integrated Care Pathways for Adults and Children in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review.综合护理路径在医疗环境中对成人和儿童的有效性:一项系统评价。
JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2009;7(3):80-129. doi: 10.11124/01938924-200907030-00001.
5
How has the impact of 'care pathway technologies' on service integration in stroke care been measured and what is the strength of the evidence to support their effectiveness in this respect?“护理路径技术”对卒中护理服务整合的影响是如何衡量的,以及有哪些证据支持其在这方面的有效性?
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2008 Mar;6(1):78-110. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-1609.2007.00098.x.
6
Challenges and Facilitators to Patient and Public Involvement In Stroke Research: Protocol for a Qualitative Study.中风研究中患者及公众参与的挑战与促进因素:一项定性研究方案
Health Expect. 2025 Apr;28(2):e70231. doi: 10.1111/hex.70231.
7
Benefits and risks of health data reuse for healthcare providers: stakeholder perspectives from a qualitative interview study.医疗保健提供者重复使用健康数据的益处与风险:来自一项定性访谈研究的利益相关者观点
BMC Health Serv Res. 2025 Mar 18;25(1):402. doi: 10.1186/s12913-025-12500-7.
8
From awareness to integration: a qualitative interview study on the impact of digital therapeutics on physicians' practices in Germany.从认知到整合:关于数字疗法对德国医生医疗实践影响的定性访谈研究
BMC Health Serv Res. 2025 Apr 18;25(1):568. doi: 10.1186/s12913-025-12656-2.
9
Working together in health research: a mixed-methods patient engagement evaluation.健康研究中的合作:一项混合方法的患者参与度评估
Res Involv Engagem. 2023 Aug 1;9(1):62. doi: 10.1186/s40900-023-00475-w.
10
[Development of guideline-based quality indicators: a qualitative study on barriers and facilitating factors from the perspective of S3-guideline authors].[基于指南的质量指标的制定:从S3指南作者角度对障碍和促进因素的定性研究]
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2019 Nov;147-148:34-44. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2019.09.001. Epub 2019 Nov 13.

本文引用的文献

1
[Planning, Reflecting and Evaluating Participatory Health Research: Adaptation and Piloting of the "Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) Model" for German-Speaking Countries].[参与式健康研究的规划、反思与评估:德语国家“基于社区的参与式研究(CBPR)模式”的改编与试点]
Gesundheitswesen. 2024 Feb;86(2):111-117. doi: 10.1055/a-2167-2100. Epub 2023 Dec 21.
2
[Research partners in health services research: need, acceptance and feasibility of preparatory trainings].[卫生服务研究中的研究伙伴:预备培训的需求、接受度与可行性]
Gesundheitswesen. 2024 Jun;86(6):447-450. doi: 10.1055/a-2144-5973. Epub 2023 Oct 9.
3
Recognizing patient partner contributions to health research: a systematic review of reported practices.认识患者合作伙伴对健康研究的贡献:对已报道实践的系统评价
Res Involv Engagem. 2023 Sep 9;9(1):80. doi: 10.1186/s40900-023-00488-5.
4
Working together in health research: a mixed-methods patient engagement evaluation.健康研究中的合作:一项混合方法的患者参与度评估
Res Involv Engagem. 2023 Aug 1;9(1):62. doi: 10.1186/s40900-023-00475-w.
5
[Patient and Public Involvement in Family Medicine Research].[患者及公众参与家庭医学研究]
ZFA (Stuttgart). 2022;98(5):178-183. doi: 10.53180/zfa.2022.0178-0183. Epub 2022 May 1.
6
Predictors and outcomes in primary depression care (POKAL) - a research training group develops an innovative approach to collaborative care.原发性抑郁症治疗中的预测因素和结局(POKAL) - 一个研究培训组开发出一种创新的合作护理方法。
BMC Prim Care. 2022 Dec 2;23(1):309. doi: 10.1186/s12875-022-01913-6.
7
[Not Available].[无可用内容]
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2022 Sep;173:98-105. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2022.07.002. Epub 2022 Aug 26.
8
Participatory codesign of patient involvement in a Learning Health System: How can data-driven care be patient-driven care?参与式设计让患者参与学习型医疗体系:如何实现数据驱动型医疗服务向患者驱动型医疗服务的转变?
Health Expect. 2022 Feb;25(1):103-115. doi: 10.1111/hex.13345. Epub 2021 Oct 20.
9
How to foster successful implementation of a patient reported experience measurement in the disability sector: an example of developing strategies in co-creation.如何促进在残疾领域成功实施患者报告体验测量:共同创造中制定策略的一个例子
Res Involv Engagem. 2021 Jun 24;7(1):45. doi: 10.1186/s40900-021-00287-w.
10
[Opportunities and challenges of active patient involvement in clinical research in Germany - from the perspectives of a patient representative, a clinical researcher and two staff members of research funding management].[德国患者积极参与临床研究的机遇与挑战——来自患者代表、临床研究人员以及两位研究资助管理工作人员的视角]
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2021 Jun;163:66-75. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2021.03.003. Epub 2021 May 21.

[一项旨在简化患者参与研究整合流程的定性访谈研究]

[A qualitative interview study to streamline integration of patient participation in research].

作者信息

Di Meo Anna-Francesca Jessica, Gökce Feyza, Pfeiffer Lisa, Teusen Clara, Gehrmann Jan, Jung-Sievers Caroline, Schneider Antonius, Gensichen Jochen, De Valerio Karolina, Pitschel-Walz Gabriele

机构信息

Lehrstuhl für Public Health und Versorgungsforschung, Institut für medizinische Informationsverarbeitung, Biometrie und Epidemiologie, Medizinische Fakultät, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Germany.

Pettenkofer School of Public Health, München, Germany.

出版信息

Gesundheitswesen. 2025 May;87(5):318-327. doi: 10.1055/a-2445-5498. Epub 2024 Oct 18.

DOI:10.1055/a-2445-5498
PMID:39424399
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12043378/
Abstract

Integration of the patient perspective in research projects is essential to strengthen the relevance and quality of research results. In order to rectify the lack of structured procedures for patient integration in German research projects, this study summarises the currently available knowledge in a simplified practice-oriented checklist for researchers.Through 13 semi-structured qualitative interviews conducted with members of a research group in December 2022, this study explored patient participation possibilities and barriers. The inductive-deductive coding and analysis in the software MAXQDA led to a standardized checklist development for seamless patient integration across similar contexts and research fields.Of 13 experts, nine researchers (69%) incorporated patient insights into their work, covering topics, concepts, focus prioritization, and study materials. Four researchers (31%) faced barriers due to the absence of guidelines. More than 90% recognized potential for patient integration in topic prioritization, concept formation, evaluation, result review, and interpretation. Researchers highlighted barriers such as patient's limited scientific basis, restricted access, and knowledge gaps in patient interaction. Among the respondents, 56% pointed to training needs and 44% to structural barriers such as workload, unclear funding, guidelines and stakeholder involvement. The resulting checklist includes six sub-categories, each with an average of four sub-items, which operationalise the integration process.Current research lacks effective patient inclusion processes due to inadequate access, tools, and knowledge. While immediate training can address some challenges, longer-term changes in policy and funding are necessary. With the new checklist, researchers receive a support tool to integrate the patient perspective in their projects in a systematic manner.

摘要

将患者视角纳入研究项目对于增强研究结果的相关性和质量至关重要。为了纠正德国研究项目中患者纳入缺乏结构化程序的问题,本研究为研究人员总结了当前可用的知识,并简化为一份以实践为导向的清单。通过2022年12月对一个研究小组的成员进行的13次半结构化定性访谈,本研究探索了患者参与的可能性和障碍。在MAXQDA软件中进行的归纳-演绎编码和分析,促成了一份标准化清单的制定,以便在类似背景和研究领域中无缝纳入患者。在13位专家中,9位研究人员(69%)将患者见解纳入其工作,涵盖主题、概念、重点优先级和研究材料。4位研究人员(31%)因缺乏指导方针而面临障碍。超过90%的人认识到在主题优先级确定、概念形成、评估、结果审查和解释方面患者纳入的潜力。研究人员强调了一些障碍,如患者科学基础有限、获取受限以及患者互动中的知识差距。在受访者中,56%指出了培训需求,44%指出了结构障碍,如工作量、资金不明、指导方针和利益相关者参与等问题。由此产生的清单包括六个子类别,每个子类别平均有四个子项,这些子项将纳入过程进行了操作化。由于获取途径、工具和知识不足,当前研究缺乏有效的患者纳入流程。虽然即时培训可以解决一些挑战,但政策和资金方面的长期变革是必要的。有了新的清单,研究人员获得了一个支持工具,以便将患者视角系统地纳入他们的项目。