Attitudes and perceptions regarding knowledge translation and community engagement in medical research: the PERSPECT qualitative study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The medical research community widely endorses the importance of ensuring that research outputs are relevant and accessible to knowledge users, as well as the value of engaging the latter in the conduct of research to achieve these goals. However, it appears these principles are reflected in actual medical research practices to a limited extent. To better understand this dissonance, we conducted a qualitative investigation into the perspectives of key stakeholders on bridging the knowledge-to-action gap and patient and public engagement. METHODS: The Priorities and Expectations of Researchers, Donors, Patients and the Public Regarding the Funding and Conduct of Medical Research (PERSPECT) qualitative study involved in-depth, semi-structured interviews with representatives of four stakeholder groups. Among other topics, participants were asked to discuss issues related to moving medical research knowledge into action (knowledge translation), including patient and public engagement during the research journey as a prerequisite to the success of this process. We analysed collected data employing an interpretative grounded theory approach. Data collection was ended once thematic saturation had been attained. RESULTS: A total of 41 interviews were completed and analysed (with 10 patients, 10 members of the general public, 11 researchers and 10 funders). Many participants expressed a belief in the importance of engaging patients in the research process, as well as ensuring that study findings reach beyond academic communities. However, multiple challenges and barriers were identified to implementing these values in practice, including: researchers having limited knowledge and tools to foster partnerships with community members; research outputs being inaccessible to the wider public; and the public having insufficient capacity - in view of the required time, effort and knowledge - to assimilate findings and contribute to ongoing research. Cumulatively, interviews indicated a continuing disconnect between research and lay communities, where each stakeholder group holds some responsibility for improving the current paradigm. CONCLUSIONS: Existing gaps in communication, knowledge and relevant competencies are fuelling a disconnect between research and lay communities. Successfully moving research knowledge into action requires joint efforts of multiple stakeholder groups with support from external resources to ensure necessary training, expertise and credible dissemination platforms.
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 | 0,133 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,010 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,004 |
| 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 ».