脑肿瘤基因组研究的参与方法:多方法比较研究。

Q2 Medicine
Matthew DeCamp, Juliana G Barnard, Carly Ritger, Laura J Helmkamp, Anowara Begum, Sandra Garcia-Hernandez, Rudy Fischmann, Nestelynn Gay, Ricardo Gonzalez-Fisher, Kevin C Johnson, Lindsay A Lennox, Guy R Lipof, Jasmyn Ostmeyer, Ifeoma Perkins, Laura Pyle, Liz Salmi, Talia Thompson, Elizabeth B Claus, Roel Verhaak, Bethany M Kwan
{"title":"脑肿瘤基因组研究的参与方法:多方法比较研究。","authors":"Matthew DeCamp, Juliana G Barnard, Carly Ritger, Laura J Helmkamp, Anowara Begum, Sandra Garcia-Hernandez, Rudy Fischmann, Nestelynn Gay, Ricardo Gonzalez-Fisher, Kevin C Johnson, Lindsay A Lennox, Guy R Lipof, Jasmyn Ostmeyer, Ifeoma Perkins, Laura Pyle, Liz Salmi, Talia Thompson, Elizabeth B Claus, Roel Verhaak, Bethany M Kwan","doi":"10.2196/68852","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Engaging patients, care partners, and others in research planning and conduct is increasingly valued. However, identifying the most effective ways to do so remains a challenge.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate participation and participant experience using 3 engagement methods with the Low-Grade Glioma (LGG) Registry's Optimizing Engagement in Discovery of Molecular Evolution of Low-Grade Glioma (OPTIMUM) project, part of the National Cancer Institute's Participant Engagement and Cancer Genome Sequencing Network.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated LGG Registry research advisory council (RAC) meetings, Twitter (now known as X), and Facebook discussions across 4 engagement activities with each group. Researchers recorded discussions and performed qualitative content analysis to evaluate differences in the nature of interactions and recommendations for promoting trust and participation in LGG Registry research. Participants completed experience surveys after engagements 1 and 4 (Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool, Research Engagement Survey Tool, Trust in Medical Researchers Scale, and Patient Engagement in Research Scale).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>RAC engagements involved 25 unique participants representing diverse backgrounds; tweet chats and Facebook discussions had 197 and 133 participants, respectively. Qualitative findings highlighted differences in the nature of interactions (eg, communication styles and types of information shared) across groups, but there was general agreement around recommendations for promoting participation in genomic research. Postengagement surveys (n=52 in ipostengagement activity 1; n=40 in postengagement activity 4) showed patterns suggesting a more positive experience overall for the RAC.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Advisory councils and social media engagement methods have advantages and disadvantages. Advisory councils provide consistent interactions with the same individuals and clear procedures. Despite theoretically broader reach, social media engagement may yield less diverse perspectives. The LGG Registry aims to use RAC and social media engagement methods to promote diverse perspectives and maintain consistent interactions.</p>","PeriodicalId":36208,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Participatory Medicine","volume":"17 ","pages":"e68852"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12411796/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Engagement Methods in Brain Tumor Genomic Research: Multimethod Comparative Study.\",\"authors\":\"Matthew DeCamp, Juliana G Barnard, Carly Ritger, Laura J Helmkamp, Anowara Begum, Sandra Garcia-Hernandez, Rudy Fischmann, Nestelynn Gay, Ricardo Gonzalez-Fisher, Kevin C Johnson, Lindsay A Lennox, Guy R Lipof, Jasmyn Ostmeyer, Ifeoma Perkins, Laura Pyle, Liz Salmi, Talia Thompson, Elizabeth B Claus, Roel Verhaak, Bethany M Kwan\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/68852\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Engaging patients, care partners, and others in research planning and conduct is increasingly valued. However, identifying the most effective ways to do so remains a challenge.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate participation and participant experience using 3 engagement methods with the Low-Grade Glioma (LGG) Registry's Optimizing Engagement in Discovery of Molecular Evolution of Low-Grade Glioma (OPTIMUM) project, part of the National Cancer Institute's Participant Engagement and Cancer Genome Sequencing Network.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated LGG Registry research advisory council (RAC) meetings, Twitter (now known as X), and Facebook discussions across 4 engagement activities with each group. Researchers recorded discussions and performed qualitative content analysis to evaluate differences in the nature of interactions and recommendations for promoting trust and participation in LGG Registry research. Participants completed experience surveys after engagements 1 and 4 (Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool, Research Engagement Survey Tool, Trust in Medical Researchers Scale, and Patient Engagement in Research Scale).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>RAC engagements involved 25 unique participants representing diverse backgrounds; tweet chats and Facebook discussions had 197 and 133 participants, respectively. Qualitative findings highlighted differences in the nature of interactions (eg, communication styles and types of information shared) across groups, but there was general agreement around recommendations for promoting participation in genomic research. Postengagement surveys (n=52 in ipostengagement activity 1; n=40 in postengagement activity 4) showed patterns suggesting a more positive experience overall for the RAC.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Advisory councils and social media engagement methods have advantages and disadvantages. Advisory councils provide consistent interactions with the same individuals and clear procedures. Despite theoretically broader reach, social media engagement may yield less diverse perspectives. The LGG Registry aims to use RAC and social media engagement methods to promote diverse perspectives and maintain consistent interactions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36208,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Participatory Medicine\",\"volume\":\"17 \",\"pages\":\"e68852\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12411796/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Participatory Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/68852\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Participatory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/68852","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:让患者、护理伙伴和其他人参与研究计划和行为越来越受到重视。然而,确定最有效的方法仍然是一项挑战。目的:本研究旨在通过3种参与方法评估低级别胶质瘤(LGG)登记处在低级别胶质瘤分子进化发现(OPTIMUM)项目中的参与情况和参与者体验,该项目是国家癌症研究所参与者参与和癌症基因组测序网络的一部分。方法:我们评估了LGG Registry研究咨询委员会(RAC)会议、Twitter(现在称为X)和Facebook上与每个小组进行的4项参与活动的讨论。研究人员记录讨论并进行定性内容分析,以评估互动性质的差异,并建议在LGG注册研究中促进信任和参与。参与者在参与1和4后完成了体验调查(公众和患者参与评估工具、研究参与调查工具、对医学研究人员的信任量表和患者参与研究量表)。结果:RAC参与了代表不同背景的25个独特参与者;推特聊天和Facebook讨论分别有197人和133人参与。定性研究结果强调了群体间互动性质(例如,沟通方式和共享信息类型)的差异,但对促进参与基因组研究的建议达成了普遍共识。参与后调查(参与后活动1中n=52;参与后活动4中n=40)显示的模式表明RAC总体上有更积极的体验。结论:咨询委员会和社交媒体参与方法各有优缺点。咨询委员会与相同的个人和明确的程序进行一致的互动。尽管理论上影响范围更广,但社交媒体的参与可能会产生较少的多样化观点。LGG注册处旨在使用RAC和社交媒体参与方法来促进不同的观点并保持一致的互动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Engagement Methods in Brain Tumor Genomic Research: Multimethod Comparative Study.

Engagement Methods in Brain Tumor Genomic Research: Multimethod Comparative Study.

Background: Engaging patients, care partners, and others in research planning and conduct is increasingly valued. However, identifying the most effective ways to do so remains a challenge.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate participation and participant experience using 3 engagement methods with the Low-Grade Glioma (LGG) Registry's Optimizing Engagement in Discovery of Molecular Evolution of Low-Grade Glioma (OPTIMUM) project, part of the National Cancer Institute's Participant Engagement and Cancer Genome Sequencing Network.

Methods: We evaluated LGG Registry research advisory council (RAC) meetings, Twitter (now known as X), and Facebook discussions across 4 engagement activities with each group. Researchers recorded discussions and performed qualitative content analysis to evaluate differences in the nature of interactions and recommendations for promoting trust and participation in LGG Registry research. Participants completed experience surveys after engagements 1 and 4 (Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool, Research Engagement Survey Tool, Trust in Medical Researchers Scale, and Patient Engagement in Research Scale).

Results: RAC engagements involved 25 unique participants representing diverse backgrounds; tweet chats and Facebook discussions had 197 and 133 participants, respectively. Qualitative findings highlighted differences in the nature of interactions (eg, communication styles and types of information shared) across groups, but there was general agreement around recommendations for promoting participation in genomic research. Postengagement surveys (n=52 in ipostengagement activity 1; n=40 in postengagement activity 4) showed patterns suggesting a more positive experience overall for the RAC.

Conclusions: Advisory councils and social media engagement methods have advantages and disadvantages. Advisory councils provide consistent interactions with the same individuals and clear procedures. Despite theoretically broader reach, social media engagement may yield less diverse perspectives. The LGG Registry aims to use RAC and social media engagement methods to promote diverse perspectives and maintain consistent interactions.

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
Journal of Participatory Medicine
Journal of Participatory Medicine Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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