探索利益相关者在干预实施研究中的参与:基于证据缺口图方法的系统证据合成。

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Kristina Arnahoutova, Sabina De Geest, Juliane Mielke, Annette Boaz, Helene Schoemans, Sabine Valenta
{"title":"探索利益相关者在干预实施研究中的参与:基于证据缺口图方法的系统证据合成。","authors":"Kristina Arnahoutova, Sabina De Geest, Juliane Mielke, Annette Boaz, Helene Schoemans, Sabine Valenta","doi":"10.1177/01632787251352837","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Stakeholder involvement (SI) is essential for effective and sustainable intervention implementation, yet practical guidance is lacking. This study mapped SI use in implementation science studies, identified gaps, and proposed a practical framework for improved SI planning. Using an evidence gap map approach, this study built on Mielke et al.'s (2022) methodology, which identified implementation studies from 2015-2020. The search was updated to include studies from 2021-2023 from PubMed, using the same search strategy and inclusion criteria. Data extraction followed the Guidance for Reporting on Involvement of Patients and the Public reporting checklist. From 10,184 studies, a random sample of 2,005 was screened, adding 162 implementation science studies to Mielke et al.'s 110, totaling 272 studies for SI analysis. SI was reported in 89% of studies, but often lacked depth and strategic planning. Stakeholders were mainly engaged during the preparatory phase. Most studies involved micro- and meso-level stakeholders, rarely including macro-level stakeholders. Few described stakeholder selection or preparation. SI was mostly consultative, via interviews, surveys, and focus groups, with limited active collaboration. SI processes and costs were rarely evaluated. Our findings underscore the need for structured, comprehensive SI planning and offer practical recommendations to strengthen SI efforts in implementation research.</p>","PeriodicalId":12315,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","volume":" ","pages":"1632787251352837"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring Stakeholder Involvement in Intervention Implementation Studies: Systematic Evidence Synthesis With an Evidence Gap Map Approach.\",\"authors\":\"Kristina Arnahoutova, Sabina De Geest, Juliane Mielke, Annette Boaz, Helene Schoemans, Sabine Valenta\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01632787251352837\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Stakeholder involvement (SI) is essential for effective and sustainable intervention implementation, yet practical guidance is lacking. This study mapped SI use in implementation science studies, identified gaps, and proposed a practical framework for improved SI planning. Using an evidence gap map approach, this study built on Mielke et al.'s (2022) methodology, which identified implementation studies from 2015-2020. The search was updated to include studies from 2021-2023 from PubMed, using the same search strategy and inclusion criteria. Data extraction followed the Guidance for Reporting on Involvement of Patients and the Public reporting checklist. From 10,184 studies, a random sample of 2,005 was screened, adding 162 implementation science studies to Mielke et al.'s 110, totaling 272 studies for SI analysis. SI was reported in 89% of studies, but often lacked depth and strategic planning. Stakeholders were mainly engaged during the preparatory phase. Most studies involved micro- and meso-level stakeholders, rarely including macro-level stakeholders. Few described stakeholder selection or preparation. SI was mostly consultative, via interviews, surveys, and focus groups, with limited active collaboration. SI processes and costs were rarely evaluated. Our findings underscore the need for structured, comprehensive SI planning and offer practical recommendations to strengthen SI efforts in implementation research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12315,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evaluation & the Health Professions\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1632787251352837\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evaluation & the Health Professions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787251352837\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787251352837","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

利益相关者参与(SI)对于有效和可持续的干预实施至关重要,但缺乏实际指导。本研究绘制了科学探究在实施科学研究中的应用,确定了差距,并提出了一个改进科学探究计划的实用框架。本研究采用证据差距图方法,以Mielke等人(2022)的方法为基础,确定了2015-2020年的实施研究。使用相同的搜索策略和纳入标准,更新了PubMed中2021-2023年的研究。数据提取遵循《患者参与报告指南》和《公众报告清单》。从10184项研究中,随机筛选出2005项,在Mielke等人的110项研究基础上增加162项实施科学研究,共计272项研究用于SI分析。89%的研究报告了SI,但往往缺乏深度和战略规划。持份者主要在筹备阶段参与。大多数研究涉及微观和中观层面的利益相关者,很少涉及宏观层面的利益相关者。很少有人描述利益相关者的选择或准备。SI主要是咨询,通过访谈,调查和焦点小组,有限的积极合作。SI过程和成本很少被评估。我们的研究结果强调了结构化、全面的科学探究计划的必要性,并提供了切实可行的建议,以加强科学探究在实施研究中的努力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exploring Stakeholder Involvement in Intervention Implementation Studies: Systematic Evidence Synthesis With an Evidence Gap Map Approach.

Stakeholder involvement (SI) is essential for effective and sustainable intervention implementation, yet practical guidance is lacking. This study mapped SI use in implementation science studies, identified gaps, and proposed a practical framework for improved SI planning. Using an evidence gap map approach, this study built on Mielke et al.'s (2022) methodology, which identified implementation studies from 2015-2020. The search was updated to include studies from 2021-2023 from PubMed, using the same search strategy and inclusion criteria. Data extraction followed the Guidance for Reporting on Involvement of Patients and the Public reporting checklist. From 10,184 studies, a random sample of 2,005 was screened, adding 162 implementation science studies to Mielke et al.'s 110, totaling 272 studies for SI analysis. SI was reported in 89% of studies, but often lacked depth and strategic planning. Stakeholders were mainly engaged during the preparatory phase. Most studies involved micro- and meso-level stakeholders, rarely including macro-level stakeholders. Few described stakeholder selection or preparation. SI was mostly consultative, via interviews, surveys, and focus groups, with limited active collaboration. SI processes and costs were rarely evaluated. Our findings underscore the need for structured, comprehensive SI planning and offer practical recommendations to strengthen SI efforts in implementation research.

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
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Evaluation & the Health Professions is a peer-reviewed, quarterly journal that provides health-related professionals with state-of-the-art methodological, measurement, and statistical tools for conceptualizing the etiology of health promotion and problems, and developing, implementing, and evaluating health programs, teaching and training services, and products that pertain to a myriad of health dimensions. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 31 days
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信