• 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

评估患者代表模式对受宫颈癌影响女性的支持效果。

Evaluating the impact of a patient-representative model of support for women affected by cervical cancer.

作者信息

Kinsella Elaine L, Kavanagh Elaine

机构信息

Department of Psychology, Centre for Social Issues Research, Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Ireland.

Department of Psychology, University of Limerick, Ireland.

出版信息

Womens Health (Lond). 2025 Jan-Dec;21:17455057251351415. doi: 10.1177/17455057251351415. Epub 2025 Jul 18.

DOI:10.1177/17455057251351415
PMID:40679528
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12276518/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

In the aftermath of high-profile healthcare system failures, patient representative groups can emerge as key contributors to support, reform, and accountability. Following the identification of failures in Ireland's CervicalCheck screening programme in 2018, the 221+ Patient Representative Group (commonly known as 221+) was established to support affected women and families.

OBJECTIVES

The present research aimed to assess the impact of the 221+ group and associated patient representatives in supporting women and influencing the delivery of healthcare.

DESIGN

An independent research team conducted a two-phase qualitative study, gathering perspectives from a range of stakeholders involved in statutory, non-statutory, and voluntary healthcare sectors in Ireland.

METHOD

Interview data collected from key stakeholders (phase 1,  = 15) and qualitative survey responses from medical and healthcare professionals (phase 2,  = 86) were analysed separately using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Findings support the value of a patient-representative model in providing support and advocacy for women affected by cervical cancer and their families, while also highlighting important considerations such as sustainability, integration with healthcare systems, and the need for inclusive representation.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a case example of patient advocacy in action, offering transferable insights and strategies to inform patient-centred care and healthcare reform in other settings.

摘要

背景

在备受瞩目的医疗系统故障事件之后,患者代表团体可能成为支持、改革和问责的关键贡献者。2018年爱尔兰宫颈癌筛查计划出现故障后,成立了221+患者代表团体(通常称为221+),以支持受影响的妇女和家庭。

目的

本研究旨在评估221+团体及相关患者代表在支持女性和影响医疗服务提供方面的影响。

设计

一个独立的研究团队进行了一项两阶段的定性研究,收集了爱尔兰法定、非法定和志愿医疗部门一系列利益相关者的观点。

方法

分别使用反思性主题分析法对从关键利益相关者收集的访谈数据(第一阶段,n = 15)和医疗及医护专业人员的定性调查回复(第二阶段,n = 86)进行分析。

结果

研究结果支持患者代表模式在为受宫颈癌影响的女性及其家庭提供支持和宣传方面的价值,同时也突出了可持续性、与医疗系统整合以及包容性代表等重要考虑因素。

结论

本研究提供了一个患者维权行动的案例,提供了可借鉴的见解和策略,为其他环境下以患者为中心的护理和医疗改革提供参考。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a79b/12276518/dc590ab04165/10.1177_17455057251351415-fig2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a79b/12276518/dc38bd621bc7/10.1177_17455057251351415-fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a79b/12276518/dc590ab04165/10.1177_17455057251351415-fig2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a79b/12276518/dc38bd621bc7/10.1177_17455057251351415-fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a79b/12276518/dc590ab04165/10.1177_17455057251351415-fig2.jpg

相似文献

1
Evaluating the impact of a patient-representative model of support for women affected by cervical cancer.评估患者代表模式对受宫颈癌影响女性的支持效果。
Womens Health (Lond). 2025 Jan-Dec;21:17455057251351415. doi: 10.1177/17455057251351415. Epub 2025 Jul 18.
2
Feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness of laparoscopic versus abdominal hysterectomy for women and healthcare professionals: the LAVA trial qualitative process evaluation.腹腔镜子宫切除术与腹式子宫切除术对女性和医护人员的可行性、可接受性及适宜性:LAVA试验定性过程评估
Health Technol Assess. 2025 Jul 23:1-21. doi: 10.3310/GJTC1325.
3
Patient buy-in to social prescribing through link workers as part of person-centred care: a realist evaluation.患者通过联络人员接受社会处方作为以患者为中心的护理的一部分:一项现实主义评价。
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2024 Sep 25:1-17. doi: 10.3310/ETND8254.
4
Addressing Inequalities in Long Covid Healthcare: A Mixed-Methods Study on Building Inclusive Services.解决长期新冠医疗保健中的不平等问题:一项关于建立包容性服务的混合方法研究。
Health Expect. 2025 Aug;28(4):e70336. doi: 10.1111/hex.70336.
5
How to Implement Digital Clinical Consultations in UK Maternity Care: the ARM@DA Realist Review.如何在英国产科护理中实施数字临床会诊:ARM@DA实证主义综述
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2025 May 21:1-77. doi: 10.3310/WQFV7425.
6
Accreditation through the eyes of nurse managers: an infinite staircase or a phenomenon that evaporates like water.护士长眼中的认证:是无尽的阶梯还是如流水般消逝的现象。
J Health Organ Manag. 2025 Jun 30. doi: 10.1108/JHOM-01-2025-0029.
7
Survivor, family and professional experiences of psychosocial interventions for sexual abuse and violence: a qualitative evidence synthesis.性虐待和暴力的心理社会干预的幸存者、家庭和专业人员的经验:定性证据综合。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Oct 4;10(10):CD013648. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013648.pub2.
8
Health professionals' experience of teamwork education in acute hospital settings: a systematic review of qualitative literature.医疗专业人员在急症医院环境中团队合作教育的经验:对定性文献的系统综述
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Apr;14(4):96-137. doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-1843.
9
A digital intervention to improve mental health and interpersonal resilience for young people who have experienced online sexual abuse: the i-Minds non-randomised feasibility clinical trial and nested qualitative study.一项针对遭受网络性虐待的年轻人改善心理健康和人际恢复力的数字干预措施:i-Minds非随机可行性临床试验及嵌套定性研究
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2025 Jul;13(28):1-27. doi: 10.3310/THAL8732.
10
Factors that influence caregivers' and adolescents' views and practices regarding human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination for adolescents: a qualitative evidence synthesis.影响照顾者和青少年对青少年人乳头瘤病毒(HPV)疫苗接种的看法及做法的因素:一项定性证据综合分析
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 Apr 15;4(4):CD013430. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013430.pub2.

本文引用的文献

1
Supporting best practice in reflexive thematic analysis reporting in : A review of published research and introduction to the (RTARG).支持反思性主题分析报告的最佳实践:已发表研究的回顾及 (RTARG)介绍。
Palliat Med. 2024 Jun;38(6):608-616. doi: 10.1177/02692163241234800. Epub 2024 Mar 12.
2
Lived experience experts: a name created by us for us.亲历者专家:我们为自己创造的名字。
Expert Rev Hematol. 2023 Mar;16(sup1):7-11. doi: 10.1080/17474086.2023.2178410.
3
The public and patient involvement imperative in Ireland: Building on policy drivers.
爱尔兰的公众和患者参与强制要求:基于政策驱动因素。
Front Public Health. 2022 Nov 10;10:1038409. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1038409. eCollection 2022.
4
Patient representatives: Crucial members of health-care working groups facing an uncertain role and conflicting expectations. A qualitative study.患者代表:在面对不确定角色和相互冲突的期望时,医疗保健工作组的关键成员。一项定性研究。
Health Expect. 2021 Aug;24(4):1197-1206. doi: 10.1111/hex.13249. Epub 2021 May 5.
5
Health care providers and people with mental illness: An integrative review on anti-stigma interventions.医护人员和精神疾病患者:反污名干预措施的综合述评。
Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2021 Nov;67(7):840-853. doi: 10.1177/0020764020985891. Epub 2020 Dec 30.
6
The importance of power, context and agency in improving patient experience through a patient and family centred care approach.通过以患者和家庭为中心的护理方法提高患者体验的重要性,权力、背景和机构的作用。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2020 Jan 23;18(1):10. doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0487-1.
7
Who Should We Blame for Healthcare Failings? Lessons from the French Tainted Blood Scandal.医疗失误该归咎于谁?法国受污染血液丑闻的教训。
Med Law Rev. 2019 Aug 1;27(3):390-405. doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fwz004.
8
Long-Term Impacts Faced by Patients and Families After Harmful Healthcare Events.有害医疗保健事件后患者及其家庭面临的长期影响。
J Patient Saf. 2021 Dec 1;17(8):e1145-e1151. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000451.
9
"How can anybody be representative for those kind of people?" Forms of patient representation in health research, and why it is always contestable.在健康研究中,如何让任何人能够代表那类人群?患者代表性的形式,以及为什么这始终是有争议的。
Soc Sci Med. 2017 Jun;183:62-69. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.04.049. Epub 2017 Apr 27.
10
Disentangling patient and public involvement in healthcare decisions: why the difference matters.理清患者和公众在医疗决策中的参与:为何差异至关重要。
Sociol Health Illn. 2017 Jan;39(1):95-111. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.12483. Epub 2016 Nov 11.