Research quality and dissemination of paediatric randomised controlled trials with and without patient and family engagement: systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: Authentic patient and family engagement in child health research is defined as researchers working in partnership with patients and families on all aspects of the research process, including refining the research question, tailoring the intervention, devising study procedures and disseminating study findings. While there is good evidence of a positive impact of patient engagement on the research process, on research teams and on patient partners, there are few empirical data on the impact of patient and family engagement on research quality and dissemination. We conducted a systematic review to compare research quality and dissemination metrics for paediatric randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that engaged patients and families in the research process with trials that did not. DESIGN: Systematic review using the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search to identify RCTs. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE from 1 January 2011 through to 31 December 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: (a peer-reviewed general medical journal). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Trials were categorised as those engaging patients and families (PE+) and those that did not (PE-). A standardised review form was used to confirm trial eligibility and extract data on study characteristics. Two reviewers independently screened and sorted RCTs into PE+ and PE- groups, extracted data and assessed research quality using the modified Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (based on seven methodological criteria). The dissemination of RCT findings was determined using measures of academic and non-academic citation collected from Web of Science and Scopus. RESULTS: published 45 RCTs involving children and youth. Only 10/45 RCTs (22%) reported engaging patients and families in the research process. Research quality for PE+ and PE- paediatric RCTs was similar; 4/10 (40%) of PE+ trials and 13/35 (37%) of PE- trials were rated as 'fair' or 'good' (p=1.00). Academic citation frequency per year was similar for PE+ trials and PE- trials: Web of Science (median 6.6 vs 7.1, respectively; p=0.84). Non-academic dissemination measures were generally higher among PE+ trials; for example, median PlumX Social Media score per year for PE+ trials was 46.6, compared with a median score of 7.6 for PE- trials (p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing interest in patient and family engagement in child health research, this review showed that few paediatric RCTs report patient engagement activity. Research quality was similar for trials engaging patients and families compared with those that did not. Patient and family engagement in the trial, however, was associated with higher metrics for social media attention, compared with trials with no engagement.
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 | 0,309 | 0,724 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,021 | 0,020 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,017 | 0,019 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,013 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,008 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
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.
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; l’étiquette directe de Gemma et le classifieur distillé Codex 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 ».