Establishing patient partners’ roles on research teams: a scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
There are a myriad of ways patient partners can enact their roles on research teams. International guidelines emphasize the need for a collaborative approach to determining these roles to try to improve research impact and positive patient partner experience. The aims of this review were to: (1) describe how patient partners’ roles as co-researchers in health research are determined; and (2) identify factors that influence how these decisions are made. A scoping review was conducted. Four databases were searched plus citation searching occurred. Descriptions of English language studies of any design and commentaries of studies that report on patient partners’ or researchers’ reflections on their decision-making processes for engagement were included. Two reviewers completed screening and data extraction, with a third to resolve disagreements. Results were summarized and then content analysis was undertaken to synthesize the findings. Two patient partners contributed to the protocol development, screening, data interpretation, and manuscript writing at varying times during the process. A total of 45 papers (25 commentaries, 19 studies and 1 both a study and commentary) were included in this review. Most papers were from the United Kingdom (n = 15) and Canada (n = 12). Most patient partners had experiences related to chronic conditions rather than acute or time-limited illnesses. The synthesis yielded two categories. The first category, the research and research team attributes shape patient partner roles, encompassed patient partner, researcher and activity related factors that influenced patient partner engagement in activities. The second category, shared and ongoing decision-making, described the decision-making process to determine patient partner engagement, timing of these decisions, and tools to support these decisions. A dynamic, systematic and shared decision-making approach to determining patient partners’ roles in the research process has the potential to support meaningful engagement and maximize benefits. Because the research process may evolve over time and patient partners situations can change, there may be a need to renegotiate the patient partner’s role. Patient partners can undertake various roles in the research process. International guidelines recommend patient partners and researchers work together to decide how patient partners will be involved in the research and there are many activities patient partners can do to enact their role. This review describes how these decisions are made and what shapes them. We reviewed 45 English-language research studies and commentaries on the views of patient partners and researchers that described patient partners’ and researchers’ approaches to determining patient partners’ roles in the research process. Most of these studies were from the United Kingdom and Canada, with patient partners generally having chronic illness experience. We found that patient partner roles evolved throughout the study, with many factors affecting this process. Determining the patient partner role was dynamic, with reflection, discussion and negotiation occurring throughout the research process. The review suggests the need for both patient partners and researchers to together make decisions about their respective roles.
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 | 0,054 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,011 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,004 |
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».