公民参与健康、护理或福祉技术创新研究:范围界定审查。

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Catharina Margaretha van Leersum, Christina Jaschinski, Marloes Bults, Johan van der Zwart
{"title":"公民参与健康、护理或福祉技术创新研究:范围界定审查。","authors":"Catharina Margaretha van Leersum, Christina Jaschinski, Marloes Bults, Johan van der Zwart","doi":"10.1186/s12961-024-01152-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Citizen science can be a powerful approach to foster the successful implementation of technological innovations in health, care or well-being. Involving experience experts as co-researchers or co-designers of technological innovations facilitates mutual learning, community building, and empowerment. By utilizing the expert knowledge of the intended users, innovations have a better chance to get adopted and solve complex health-related problems. As citizen science is still a relatively new practice for health and well-being, little is known about effective methods and guidelines for successful collaboration. This scoping review aims to provide insight in (1) the levels of citizen involvement in current research on technological innovations for health, care or well-being, (2) the used participatory methodologies, and (3) lesson's learned by the researchers.A scoping review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The search was performed in SCOPUS in January 2021 and included peer-reviewed journal and conference papers published between 2016 and 2020. The final selection (N = 83) was limited to empirical studies that had a clear focus on technological innovations for health, care or well-being and involved citizens at the level of collaboration or higher. Our results show a growing interest in citizens science as an inclusive research approach. Citizens are predominantly involved in the design phase of innovations and less in the preparation, data-analyses or reporting phase. Eight records had citizens in the lead in one of the research phases.Researcher use different terms to describe their methodological approach including participatory design, co-design, community based participatory research, co-creation, public and patient involvement, partcipatory action research, user-centred design and citizen science. Our selection of cases shows that succesful citizen science projects develop a structural and longitudinal partnership with their collaborators, use a situated and adaptive research approach, and have researchers that are willing to abandon traditional power dynamics and engage in a mutual learning experience.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"22 1","pages":"119"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11367923/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Citizen involvement in research on technological innovations for health, care or well-being: a scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Catharina Margaretha van Leersum, Christina Jaschinski, Marloes Bults, Johan van der Zwart\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12961-024-01152-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Citizen science can be a powerful approach to foster the successful implementation of technological innovations in health, care or well-being. Involving experience experts as co-researchers or co-designers of technological innovations facilitates mutual learning, community building, and empowerment. By utilizing the expert knowledge of the intended users, innovations have a better chance to get adopted and solve complex health-related problems. As citizen science is still a relatively new practice for health and well-being, little is known about effective methods and guidelines for successful collaboration. This scoping review aims to provide insight in (1) the levels of citizen involvement in current research on technological innovations for health, care or well-being, (2) the used participatory methodologies, and (3) lesson's learned by the researchers.A scoping review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The search was performed in SCOPUS in January 2021 and included peer-reviewed journal and conference papers published between 2016 and 2020. The final selection (N = 83) was limited to empirical studies that had a clear focus on technological innovations for health, care or well-being and involved citizens at the level of collaboration or higher. Our results show a growing interest in citizens science as an inclusive research approach. Citizens are predominantly involved in the design phase of innovations and less in the preparation, data-analyses or reporting phase. Eight records had citizens in the lead in one of the research phases.Researcher use different terms to describe their methodological approach including participatory design, co-design, community based participatory research, co-creation, public and patient involvement, partcipatory action research, user-centred design and citizen science. Our selection of cases shows that succesful citizen science projects develop a structural and longitudinal partnership with their collaborators, use a situated and adaptive research approach, and have researchers that are willing to abandon traditional power dynamics and engage in a mutual learning experience.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12870,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"119\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11367923/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01152-4\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01152-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

公民科学可以成为促进成功实施健康、护理或福祉领域技术创新的有力方法。让经验丰富的专家作为技术创新的共同研究者或共同设计者,有利于相互学习、社区建设和赋权。通过利用目标用户的专家知识,创新更有可能被采用并解决复杂的健康相关问题。由于公民科学在健康和福祉方面仍是一种相对较新的实践,人们对成功合作的有效方法和指导方针知之甚少。本范围界定综述旨在深入探讨:(1)公民参与当前健康、护理或福祉技术创新研究的程度;(2)所使用的参与式方法;以及(3)研究人员吸取的经验教训。2021 年 1 月在 SCOPUS 中进行了检索,包括 2016 年至 2020 年间发表的经同行评审的期刊论文和会议论文。最终筛选出的论文(N = 83)仅限于明确关注健康、护理或福祉方面的技术创新,并涉及合作级别或更高级别公民的实证研究。我们的研究结果表明,人们对公民科学这种包容性研究方法的兴趣与日俱增。公民主要参与创新的设计阶段,而较少参与准备、数据分析或报告阶段。研究人员使用不同的术语来描述他们的研究方法,包括参与式设计、共同设计、社区参与式研究、共同创造、公众和患者参与、部分参与式行动研究、以用户为中心的设计和公民科学。我们选择的案例表明,成功的公民科学项目与合作者建立了结构性和纵向的伙伴关系,使用了情景和适应性研究方法,研究人员愿意放弃传统的权力动态,参与到相互学习的体验中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Citizen involvement in research on technological innovations for health, care or well-being: a scoping review.

Citizen science can be a powerful approach to foster the successful implementation of technological innovations in health, care or well-being. Involving experience experts as co-researchers or co-designers of technological innovations facilitates mutual learning, community building, and empowerment. By utilizing the expert knowledge of the intended users, innovations have a better chance to get adopted and solve complex health-related problems. As citizen science is still a relatively new practice for health and well-being, little is known about effective methods and guidelines for successful collaboration. This scoping review aims to provide insight in (1) the levels of citizen involvement in current research on technological innovations for health, care or well-being, (2) the used participatory methodologies, and (3) lesson's learned by the researchers.A scoping review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The search was performed in SCOPUS in January 2021 and included peer-reviewed journal and conference papers published between 2016 and 2020. The final selection (N = 83) was limited to empirical studies that had a clear focus on technological innovations for health, care or well-being and involved citizens at the level of collaboration or higher. Our results show a growing interest in citizens science as an inclusive research approach. Citizens are predominantly involved in the design phase of innovations and less in the preparation, data-analyses or reporting phase. Eight records had citizens in the lead in one of the research phases.Researcher use different terms to describe their methodological approach including participatory design, co-design, community based participatory research, co-creation, public and patient involvement, partcipatory action research, user-centred design and citizen science. Our selection of cases shows that succesful citizen science projects develop a structural and longitudinal partnership with their collaborators, use a situated and adaptive research approach, and have researchers that are willing to abandon traditional power dynamics and engage in a mutual learning experience.

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
Health Research Policy and Systems
Health Research Policy and Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.50%
发文量
124
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Research Policy and Systems is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to provide a platform for the global research community to share their views, findings, insights and successes. Health Research Policy and Systems considers manuscripts that investigate the role of evidence-based health policy and health research systems in ensuring the efficient utilization and application of knowledge to improve health and health equity, especially in developing countries. Research is the foundation for improvements in public health. The problem is that people involved in different areas of research, together with managers and administrators in charge of research entities, do not communicate sufficiently with each other.
×
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