卒中患者和利益相关者参与(SPSE):概念、定义、模式、实施策略、指标和框架--系统性范围界定综述。

IF 6.3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Hamidreza Khankeh, Gordon Guyatt, Shima Shirozhan, Juliet Roudini, Torsten Rackoll, Ulrich Dirnagl
{"title":"卒中患者和利益相关者参与(SPSE):概念、定义、模式、实施策略、指标和框架--系统性范围界定综述。","authors":"Hamidreza Khankeh, Gordon Guyatt, Shima Shirozhan, Juliet Roudini, Torsten Rackoll, Ulrich Dirnagl","doi":"10.1186/s13643-024-02686-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Involving stroke patients in clinical research through patient engagement aims to ensure that studies are patient-centered, and may help ensure they are feasible, ethical, and credible, ultimately leading to enhanced trust and communication between researchers and the patient community. In this study, we have conducted a scoping review to identify existing evidence and gaps in SPSE.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The five-step approach outlined by Arksey and O'Malley, in conjunction with the Preferred Reporting Items for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, provided the structure for this review. To find relevant articles, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases up to February 2024. Additionally, the review team conducted a hand search using Google Scholar, key journals, and references of highly relevant articles. Reviewers screened articles, selecting eligible English-language ones with available full texts, and extracted data from them into a pre-designed table tested by the research team.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>Of the 1002 articles initially identified, 21 proved eligible. Stakeholder engagement primarily occurred during the design phase of studies and within the studies using qualitative methodologies. Although the engagement of stakeholders in the research process is increasing, practice regarding terminology and principles of implementation remains variable. Researchers have recognized the benefits of stakeholder engagement, but have also faced numerous challenges that often arise during the research process.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The current study identifies stakeholder groups and the benefits and challenges researchers face in implementing their engagement. Given existing challenges and limited specific models or frameworks, it is suggested to explore applied recommendations for stakeholder engagement in future studies, that may enhance stakeholder engagement, overcome obstacles, and unify researchers' understanding of engagement and implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"13 1","pages":"271"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11526530/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stroke patient and stakeholder engagement (SPSE): concepts, definitions, models, implementation strategies, indicators, and frameworks-a systematic scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Hamidreza Khankeh, Gordon Guyatt, Shima Shirozhan, Juliet Roudini, Torsten Rackoll, Ulrich Dirnagl\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13643-024-02686-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Involving stroke patients in clinical research through patient engagement aims to ensure that studies are patient-centered, and may help ensure they are feasible, ethical, and credible, ultimately leading to enhanced trust and communication between researchers and the patient community. In this study, we have conducted a scoping review to identify existing evidence and gaps in SPSE.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The five-step approach outlined by Arksey and O'Malley, in conjunction with the Preferred Reporting Items for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, provided the structure for this review. To find relevant articles, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases up to February 2024. Additionally, the review team conducted a hand search using Google Scholar, key journals, and references of highly relevant articles. Reviewers screened articles, selecting eligible English-language ones with available full texts, and extracted data from them into a pre-designed table tested by the research team.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>Of the 1002 articles initially identified, 21 proved eligible. Stakeholder engagement primarily occurred during the design phase of studies and within the studies using qualitative methodologies. Although the engagement of stakeholders in the research process is increasing, practice regarding terminology and principles of implementation remains variable. Researchers have recognized the benefits of stakeholder engagement, but have also faced numerous challenges that often arise during the research process.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The current study identifies stakeholder groups and the benefits and challenges researchers face in implementing their engagement. Given existing challenges and limited specific models or frameworks, it is suggested to explore applied recommendations for stakeholder engagement in future studies, that may enhance stakeholder engagement, overcome obstacles, and unify researchers' understanding of engagement and implementation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22162,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"271\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11526530/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02686-y\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02686-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:通过患者参与让卒中患者参与临床研究旨在确保研究以患者为中心,并有助于确保研究的可行性、伦理性和可信性,最终增强研究者与患者群体之间的信任和沟通。在本研究中,我们进行了一次范围审查,以确定 SPSE 的现有证据和差距:方法:Arksey 和 O'Malley 概述的五步方法与范围界定综述首选报告项目 (PRISMA-ScR) 指南相结合,为本综述提供了结构。为了找到相关文章,我们检索了截止到 2024 年 2 月的 PubMed、Web of Science 和 Embase 数据库。此外,综述小组还使用谷歌学术、主要期刊和高度相关文章的参考文献进行了人工搜索。审稿人对文章进行了筛选,挑选出符合条件且有全文的英文文章,并将其中的数据提取到研究小组预先设计好的表格中进行测试:结果:在最初确定的 1002 篇文章中,有 21 篇符合条件。利益相关者的参与主要发生在研究的设计阶段和采用定性方法的研究中。虽然利益相关者在研究过程中的参与度在不断提高,但在术语和实施原则方面的做法仍不尽相同。研究人员已经认识到利益相关者参与的益处,但也面临着研究过程中经常出现的诸多挑战:本研究确定了利益相关者群体以及研究人员在实施参与过程中面临的益处和挑战。鉴于现有的挑战和有限的具体模式或框架,建议在今后的研究中探索利益相关者参与的应用建议,以加强利益相关者的参与、克服障碍并统一研究人员对参与和实施的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Stroke patient and stakeholder engagement (SPSE): concepts, definitions, models, implementation strategies, indicators, and frameworks-a systematic scoping review.

Background: Involving stroke patients in clinical research through patient engagement aims to ensure that studies are patient-centered, and may help ensure they are feasible, ethical, and credible, ultimately leading to enhanced trust and communication between researchers and the patient community. In this study, we have conducted a scoping review to identify existing evidence and gaps in SPSE.

Methods: The five-step approach outlined by Arksey and O'Malley, in conjunction with the Preferred Reporting Items for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, provided the structure for this review. To find relevant articles, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases up to February 2024. Additionally, the review team conducted a hand search using Google Scholar, key journals, and references of highly relevant articles. Reviewers screened articles, selecting eligible English-language ones with available full texts, and extracted data from them into a pre-designed table tested by the research team.

Result: Of the 1002 articles initially identified, 21 proved eligible. Stakeholder engagement primarily occurred during the design phase of studies and within the studies using qualitative methodologies. Although the engagement of stakeholders in the research process is increasing, practice regarding terminology and principles of implementation remains variable. Researchers have recognized the benefits of stakeholder engagement, but have also faced numerous challenges that often arise during the research process.

Conclusion: The current study identifies stakeholder groups and the benefits and challenges researchers face in implementing their engagement. Given existing challenges and limited specific models or frameworks, it is suggested to explore applied recommendations for stakeholder engagement in future studies, that may enhance stakeholder engagement, overcome obstacles, and unify researchers' understanding of engagement and implementation.

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
Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
×
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