028 What lay methods of disseminating arthritis research are considered most useful by people with arthritis? A patient and public involvement project
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: In healthcare, research dissemination is largely focused towards professional audiences. However, disseminating research in accessible, lay terms can be instrumental in supporting effective self-management for people living with arthritis. People who are well-informed and understand their arthritis disease are likely to be more motivated and adhere to treatment than people who are not. This ultimately could impact on more efficient use of NHS services. The objective of this study was to work with patients and public to explore and evaluate which lay methods of disseminating arthritis research are considered the most useful by people living with arthritis in order to inform lay dissemination policies for future arthritis research. Methods: Patient and public involvement (PPI) contributors with self-reported arthritis were recruited via the Wessex Public Involvement Network. Relevant questions to include in the focus group discussion had been approved with our team PPI partner. Two focus group discussions and one 1:1 discussion were carried out with our PPI contributors. The discussion groups took place within the local community at a retail shopping outlet and community cafe. The key points from the group discussion were noted down at the time by researchers, reflected back to the group for agreement and notes compiled. At the end of discussion, the contributors were asked to write down their 3 personal priorities in relation to disseminating arthritis research. The points were then grouped into themes to report key findings. Results: Four female and three male PPI representatives (mean age =66 years SD10) contributed to the discussions. The following key themes were identified as useful when disseminating arthritis research: 1. The accessibility of the research: this needed to be expressed simply and clearly, too much information was frightening; 2 The trustworthiness of the source: people wanted to be able to trust the source of the research message and, 3. Self-management information: the most popular area that PPI representatives wanted to hear about was self-management techniques. 4. Timeliness of research dissemination: regular updates every 3 months was felt to be optimal and especially at the start of their joint pain to help people feel more supported. Conclusion: Our PPI representatives suggest that learning about arthritis research in an accessible manner on a regular basis would help people engage with self-management and to take actions in order to reduce the impact of their arthritis and/or joint pain. Overall, simple and easily accessible methods of disseminating research should be considered for all patient relevant arthritis research. Our PPI project could have been further enhanced by including some harder to reach patient groups and also incorporating healthcare professionals’ views on efficient ways of disseminating research to people living with arthritis. Disclosures: P. Bieluczyk: None. K. Inouye: None. C. Ballinger: None. J. Lawson: None. J. Adams: None.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».