分享选择临床结果和批准验证问卷的经验 :老年人登记研究的启示

Nahyun Cho, Hyungsun Jun, Won-Bae Ha, Junghan Lee, Mi Mi Ko, Young-Eun Kim, Jeeyoun Jung, Jungtae Leem
{"title":"分享选择临床结果和批准验证问卷的经验 :老年人登记研究的启示","authors":"Nahyun Cho, Hyungsun Jun, Won-Bae Ha, Junghan Lee, Mi Mi Ko, Young-Eun Kim, Jeeyoun Jung, Jungtae Leem","doi":"10.13048/jkm.24002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: Underpinned by the context of a Korean traditional medicine cohort study on healthy aging, this research primarily aims to guide the selection of Clinical Outcome Assessments (COAs) for elderly healthy aging patient registry research, offering insights into the selection process; and secondly, to streamline the resource-intensive process of obtaining permissions for validated COAs, benefiting future traditional Korean medicine clinical researchers.Methods : In this study, we identified outcomes through a review of previous studies, followed by a process involving expert consultations to select the final outcomes. Subsequently, for the selected outcomes that were Clinical Outcome Assessments (COAs) developed tools, we searched in commercial databases to confirm the availability of Korean versions and the necessity of obtaining permissions. Finally, we obtained permissions for their utilization and, when needed, acquired the original instrument questionnaire through payment.Results: Through a literature review of existing observational studies, a total of 57 outcomes were selected, with 19 of them identified as COA instruments. Upon verifying usage permissions for these 19 instruments, it was found that 17 required author-specific permissions, and among these, 2 needed a purchase as they were commercially available.Conclusion: This study provides a detailed overview of outcome selection and permission acquisition for elderly patient registry research. It underscores the importance of Clinical Outcome Assessment (COA) tools and the rigorous approval process, aiming to enhance research reliability. Continuous verification of COA information is essential, and future research should explore Core Outcome Set (COS) development through consensus-building approaches like Delphi studies.","PeriodicalId":509794,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Korean Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sharing Experiences in Selecting Clinical Outcome and Approving Validated Questionnaires : Insights from an Elderly Registry Study\",\"authors\":\"Nahyun Cho, Hyungsun Jun, Won-Bae Ha, Junghan Lee, Mi Mi Ko, Young-Eun Kim, Jeeyoun Jung, Jungtae Leem\",\"doi\":\"10.13048/jkm.24002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objectives: Underpinned by the context of a Korean traditional medicine cohort study on healthy aging, this research primarily aims to guide the selection of Clinical Outcome Assessments (COAs) for elderly healthy aging patient registry research, offering insights into the selection process; and secondly, to streamline the resource-intensive process of obtaining permissions for validated COAs, benefiting future traditional Korean medicine clinical researchers.Methods : In this study, we identified outcomes through a review of previous studies, followed by a process involving expert consultations to select the final outcomes. Subsequently, for the selected outcomes that were Clinical Outcome Assessments (COAs) developed tools, we searched in commercial databases to confirm the availability of Korean versions and the necessity of obtaining permissions. Finally, we obtained permissions for their utilization and, when needed, acquired the original instrument questionnaire through payment.Results: Through a literature review of existing observational studies, a total of 57 outcomes were selected, with 19 of them identified as COA instruments. Upon verifying usage permissions for these 19 instruments, it was found that 17 required author-specific permissions, and among these, 2 needed a purchase as they were commercially available.Conclusion: This study provides a detailed overview of outcome selection and permission acquisition for elderly patient registry research. It underscores the importance of Clinical Outcome Assessment (COA) tools and the rigorous approval process, aiming to enhance research reliability. Continuous verification of COA information is essential, and future research should explore Core Outcome Set (COS) development through consensus-building approaches like Delphi studies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":509794,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Korean Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Korean Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.13048/jkm.24002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Korean Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13048/jkm.24002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的:本研究以韩国传统医学健康老龄化队列研究为背景,主要目的是指导老年健康老龄化患者登记研究中临床结果评估(COAs)的选择,为选择过程提供见解;其次,简化获得有效COAs许可的资源密集型过程,使未来的韩国传统医学临床研究人员受益。方法:在本研究中,我们通过回顾以往的研究确定结果,然后通过专家咨询过程选择最终结果。随后,对于选定的临床结果评估(COAs)开发工具,我们在商业数据库中进行了搜索,以确认韩国版本的可用性以及获得许可的必要性。最后,我们获得了使用许可,并在必要时通过付费获得了原始工具问卷:结果:通过对现有观察性研究的文献综述,共筛选出 57 项结果,其中 19 项被确定为 COA 工具。在对这 19 种工具的使用权限进行验证后发现,有 17 种工具需要特定作者的权限,其中有 2 种工具需要购买,因为它们在市场上可以买到:本研究详细概述了老年患者登记研究的结果选择和权限获取。它强调了临床结果评估(COA)工具和严格审批流程的重要性,旨在提高研究的可靠性。持续验证 COA 信息至关重要,未来的研究应通过德尔菲研究等建立共识的方法来探索核心结果集 (COS) 的开发。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Sharing Experiences in Selecting Clinical Outcome and Approving Validated Questionnaires : Insights from an Elderly Registry Study
Objectives: Underpinned by the context of a Korean traditional medicine cohort study on healthy aging, this research primarily aims to guide the selection of Clinical Outcome Assessments (COAs) for elderly healthy aging patient registry research, offering insights into the selection process; and secondly, to streamline the resource-intensive process of obtaining permissions for validated COAs, benefiting future traditional Korean medicine clinical researchers.Methods : In this study, we identified outcomes through a review of previous studies, followed by a process involving expert consultations to select the final outcomes. Subsequently, for the selected outcomes that were Clinical Outcome Assessments (COAs) developed tools, we searched in commercial databases to confirm the availability of Korean versions and the necessity of obtaining permissions. Finally, we obtained permissions for their utilization and, when needed, acquired the original instrument questionnaire through payment.Results: Through a literature review of existing observational studies, a total of 57 outcomes were selected, with 19 of them identified as COA instruments. Upon verifying usage permissions for these 19 instruments, it was found that 17 required author-specific permissions, and among these, 2 needed a purchase as they were commercially available.Conclusion: This study provides a detailed overview of outcome selection and permission acquisition for elderly patient registry research. It underscores the importance of Clinical Outcome Assessment (COA) tools and the rigorous approval process, aiming to enhance research reliability. Continuous verification of COA information is essential, and future research should explore Core Outcome Set (COS) development through consensus-building approaches like Delphi studies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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