An Evaluation of Parents’ Experiences of Patient Engagement in Research to Develop a Digital Knowledge Translation Tool: Protocol for a Multi-Method Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The last decade has seen increasing calls for patient and public involvement in health-related research due to an ideological shift toward more equitable methods of knowledge development and an effort to increase the usability and relevance of knowledge by improving outcomes in clinical practice. Patient engagement includes simply informing patients to offering complete decision-making autonomy to individuals, groups, communities, caregivers, friends, and families who have personal experience and knowledge of a health issue. Despite the use of patient engagement methods in research, evaluation has lagged, resulting in a knowledge gap that makes it difficult to foster capacity and sustainability for patients and researchers alike since little is known about how effective patient collaborations in research are built, maintained, or improved. This study centers on pediatric functional constipation, a common condition that affects children and families. Since parents play a pivotal role in treatment, they are an optimal group to engage in improving the resources and support available to them. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to use patient-engagement methods to establish a research collaboration with parents to cocreate a digital knowledge translation tool for parents caring for a child with functional constipation and formally evaluate the patient engagement processes within this project to build the science of patient engagement in research. METHODS: Members of the parent collaborator group will be recruited from previous participants who expressed interest in the development of a digital knowledge translation tool. The group will collaborate with the research team to create a tool to address patients' support and information needs when caring for a child with functional constipation. The parent collaborator group will then be evaluated in a multimethod study design. Data will be digitally and anonymously collected from all members of the parent collaborator group, using the validated Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) patient questionnaire. Descriptive statistics will be used to report group characteristics and question responses. Qualitative analysis will be used to understand open-ended question responses. Specifically, directed content analysis will be used to assess themes of the Patient Engagement in Research (PEIR) Framework with a combination of deductive and inductive analyses. Findings will be integrated into the discussion if there are sufficient commonalities and inter-relationships. The final manuscript will include reporting of each element as described by the Good Reporting of a Mixed Methods Study criteria. RESULTS: Recruitment is planned for June 2020. Data collection for the evaluation of patient engagement processes will occur upon completion of the digital knowledge translation tool. The results of this study are expected to be published by the end of 2020. CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide valuable information about parents' experiences participating in child-health research and is a fundamental step in building the science of patient engagement in research. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/19108.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,134 | 0,113 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,033 | 0,009 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».