MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W175710228

From Stakeholders to Shareholders: Engaging Consumers in Health Research

2011· article· en· W175710228 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Susan Cox, Kelley Ross, Anne Townsend, Denise Avard, Roberta L. Woodgate

Notice bibliographique

RevueHealth law review · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueMental Health and Patient Involvement
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPublic relationsGeneral partnershipHealth careEmpowermentHealth policyBusinessMarketingSociologyPolitical science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction The consumer role in health research is becoming increasingly prominent in many countries. Australia has a Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) largely comprising physicians and health economists, but also nominated individuals to represent consumers' interests, (1) whilst in the USA the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) includes patient and consumer representatives. (2) Canada is no exception, and Health Canada aims to link input to policy development. (3) This paper describes consumer engagement in the health research process, the diverse forms such engagement may take and the benefits and challenges it poses for researchers and consumers as well as lay communities. In our view, consumer engagement in health research contributes to the ethical foundation of research practice and evidence-based medicine. It ensures that those who have the most important stake in health research, that is health consumers themselves, have a role in knowledge creation and translation and, moreover, that the research conducted is respectful of the invaluable contributions that research participants make. Consumer engagement in health research has its ethical basis in the notion, derived from procedural justice, that consumers should be afforded the opportunity to participate in the conduct of research, the results of which will ultimately affect their lives and/or bodies. (4) Consumer engagement helps overcome the inequitable conventional power relations between the dominant, active researcher and subordinate, passive subject, by having each work in partnership with the other and sharing the decision-making power. (5) Thus, consumer engagement is a form of empowerment, whereby professional non-user researchers [research] with rather than on research participants. (6) Empowerment finds its deepest expression in health research that incorporates the voices and experiences of marginalized, vulnerable, or disadvantaged populations (e.g., Aboriginal peoples, HIV-AIDS patients) into the research process. What is consumer engagement? Consumers can be defined as: Users and potential users of services, products and resources (including natural resources). In health this includes patients and potential patients; long-term users of services; carers and arents; organisations that represent consumers' interests; of the public who are the targets of health promotion programmes; and groups asking for research because they believe they have been exposed to potentially harmful circumstances, products or services. (7) Depending on the context, consumers may also be described as lay,non-expert, service user, survivor, community or members of the general public. The engagement of consumers in research needs to be conceptualized in terms of the relationship that exists between the researcher(s) and consumer(s). This relationship may be consumer-led within a consumer organization; an equal partnership based on shared decision-making and collaboration; or researcher-led where consumers are consulted over particular issues but not fully integrated into all aspects of the research. (8) Consumer engagement can occur at several stages of the research process, from setting the research agenda and shaping the research questions, to designing the research project, recruiting participants, collecting data and disseminating the results. Here we wish to clarify that we are not claiming that consumers should always be actively engaged as research collaborators or that consumers must play a role in all stages of the research in order to be effective. Rather we are acknowledging the broad spectrum of consumer engagement which exists, and the value of the consumer role, on numerous levels, as pivotal to evidence-based medicine and ethical research practice. Models of consumer engagement Increasingly, health organizations, agencies, and institutions are recognizing the importance of adopting models of consumer engagement to facilitate their research programmes. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,051
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,051
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,269

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0510,049
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0130,028
Communication savante0,0190,016
Science ouverte0,0020,028
Intégrité de la recherche0,0090,010
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0110,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,928
Tête enseignante GPT0,603
Écart entre enseignants0,325 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2011
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHealth law reviewMême sujetMental Health and Patient InvolvementTravaux en français237 207