[Research partners in health services research: need, acceptance and feasibility of preparatory trainings].

IF 0.7 4区 医学 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Gesundheitswesen Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-09 DOI:10.1055/a-2144-5973
Nicole Wimmesberger, Thomas Bierbaum, Laura Keßler, Anna Levke Brütt, Erik Farin-Glattacker
{"title":"[Research partners in health services research: need, acceptance and feasibility of preparatory trainings].","authors":"Nicole Wimmesberger, Thomas Bierbaum, Laura Keßler, Anna Levke Brütt, Erik Farin-Glattacker","doi":"10.1055/a-2144-5973","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The aim of this online survey was to assess the need, acceptance and practical feasibility of a training program for research partners in health services research by patients and the public.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In January 2023, we sent the survey to patient associations and groups nationwide via Patient Advisory Board members of the German Network for Health Services Research (DNVF). The survey included both closed and open questions. The research team analysed the information provided by the participants (n=125) descriptively and used content analysis according to Kuckartz and Rädiker (2022).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The majority (90.4%) of respondents considered patient and the public involvement in the planning and implementation of scientific studies to be very or extremely important. 41.5% (17.9%) of respondents indicated that more than 10% (more than 25%) of patients would be willing to participate in free training and be available as research partners. More than three-quarters (76.8%) of respondents agreed that training was very or extremely important. Participants preferred written information (57.3%), short online training (56.5%) and short digital information sessions (53.2%). Frequently cited barriers to delivering training include travel costs (60%), time (53.3%) and the need for extensive prior information (48.3%). Participants' suggestions for successful training implementation included comprehensibility of the training program and its organisation (location, duration and format).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In addition to the high training needs of research partners, the results also reveal some obstacles. A compact, comprehensible and digital information event with written information material increases acceptance. Researchers should take these results into account when designing and implementing training programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":47653,"journal":{"name":"Gesundheitswesen","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11248941/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gesundheitswesen","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2144-5973","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this online survey was to assess the need, acceptance and practical feasibility of a training program for research partners in health services research by patients and the public.

Method: In January 2023, we sent the survey to patient associations and groups nationwide via Patient Advisory Board members of the German Network for Health Services Research (DNVF). The survey included both closed and open questions. The research team analysed the information provided by the participants (n=125) descriptively and used content analysis according to Kuckartz and Rädiker (2022).

Results: The majority (90.4%) of respondents considered patient and the public involvement in the planning and implementation of scientific studies to be very or extremely important. 41.5% (17.9%) of respondents indicated that more than 10% (more than 25%) of patients would be willing to participate in free training and be available as research partners. More than three-quarters (76.8%) of respondents agreed that training was very or extremely important. Participants preferred written information (57.3%), short online training (56.5%) and short digital information sessions (53.2%). Frequently cited barriers to delivering training include travel costs (60%), time (53.3%) and the need for extensive prior information (48.3%). Participants' suggestions for successful training implementation included comprehensibility of the training program and its organisation (location, duration and format).

Conclusion: In addition to the high training needs of research partners, the results also reveal some obstacles. A compact, comprehensible and digital information event with written information material increases acceptance. Researchers should take these results into account when designing and implementing training programs.

[卫生服务研究的研究伙伴:预备培训的需要、接受程度和可行性]。
目的:这项在线调查的目的是评估患者和公众对医疗服务研究合作伙伴培训计划的需求、接受程度和实际可行性。方法:2023年1月,我们通过德国卫生服务研究网络(DNVF)的患者咨询委员会成员将调查发送给了全国各地的患者协会和团体。调查包括封闭式和开放式问题。根据Kuckartz和Rädiker(2022),研究团队对参与者(n=125)提供的信息进行了描述性分析,并使用了内容分析。结果:大多数(90.4%)受访者认为患者和公众参与科学研究的规划和实施非常或极为重要。41.5%(17.9%)的受访者表示,超过10%(超过25%)的患者愿意参加免费培训并作为研究伙伴。超过四分之三(76.8%)的受访者认为培训非常或极其重要。参与者更喜欢书面信息(57.3%)、短期在线培训(56.5%)和短期数字信息课程(53.2%)。提供培训的常见障碍包括差旅成本(60%)、,时间(53.3%)和对大量先前信息的需求(48.3%)。参与者对成功实施培训的建议包括对培训计划及其组织(地点、持续时间和形式)的理解。结论:除了研究伙伴的高培训需求外,研究结果还揭示了一些障碍。具有书面信息材料的紧凑、可理解和数字信息事件增加了接受度。研究人员在设计和实施培训计划时应该考虑到这些结果。
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.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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