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

IF 0.7 4区 医学 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Anna-Francesca Jessica Di Meo, Feyza Gökce, Lisa Pfeiffer, Clara Teusen, Jan Gehrmann, Caroline Jung-Sievers, Antonius Schneider, Jochen Gensichen, Karolina De Valerio, Gabriele Pitschel-Walz
{"title":"[A qualitative interview study to streamline integration of patient participation in research].","authors":"Anna-Francesca Jessica Di Meo, Feyza Gökce, Lisa Pfeiffer, Clara Teusen, Jan Gehrmann, Caroline Jung-Sievers, Antonius Schneider, Jochen Gensichen, Karolina De Valerio, Gabriele Pitschel-Walz","doi":"10.1055/a-2445-5498","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":47653,"journal":{"name":"Gesundheitswesen","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gesundheitswesen","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2445-5498","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

制定患者参与研究的核对表--抑郁症研究生课程中的定性研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Gesundheitswesen
Gesundheitswesen PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
18.20%
发文量
308
期刊介绍: The health service informs you comprehensively and up-to-date about the most important topics of the health care system. In addition to guidelines, overviews and comments, you will find current research results and contributions to CME-certified continuing education and training. The journal offers a scientific discussion forum and a platform for communications from professional societies. The content quality is ensured by a publisher body, the expert advisory board and other experts in the peer review process.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信