Patient-Oriented Research Assessment’ Criteria Procedures for Health Institutions; A scoping revue protocol
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION Patient Oriented Research (POR) considers patients and caregivers as partners with scientific investigators, healthcare professionals and administrative decision-makers. In August 2011 the Canadian Institutes of Health Research have framed a Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) as a good-practice guide for Healthcare and Academic Institutions to increase patient’s participation in health research, but little is known about the POR official assessment in Health Institutions. Being accurate about the POR range in Health Research would better reflect the POR prevalence in practice reality, but the availability of standardised POR Assessment Criteria Procedures (ACP) has not yet been achieved. OBJECTIVE To overview and map evidence on existing ACP to certify the POR practice in Health Institutions. Consequently, our research question is « What are the available ACP for POR practice evaluation in Health Institution’s Medical Research? » This should serve our projects to propose standardised pan-Canadian POR accreditation protocols, and andragogy workshop tools to enrol and achieve them. METHODS Following Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methods and predetermined eligibility (Population-Health Institutions, Concept-POR/ACP, Context- any Medical Research, Outcomes- any relevant POR/ACP from Health Institution’s Protocols (e.g. self-declared regulation, policy, good-practice, guide-lines) to national Administrations Programs (e.g. registered, certification, accreditation, license), we are performing a qualitative scoping review, searching for POR/ACP in academic peer-reviewed data bases (e.g. PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane Lib), and grey literature libraries (e.g. Federal and Provincial Administration, public and private health and academic institutions records, websites and conferences data). Should institution’s self regulations not be clearly stated, we will use a non-interventional POR Criteria Quiz, to assess that practice with scientific investigators, decision-makers and patients as stake holders. Our scoping review’s steps are: 1) framing the research question; 2) targeting the documentation; 3) selecting studies by 2 reviewers; 4) charting/extract data; 5) summarize and report the results. Only documents in English or French will be overviewed, from 01.01.2012 to date, and only those quoting about POR/ACP (either Programs or Protocols) still in service to date will be considered. As in many scoping revues, selected sources of evidence will not be critically appraised. We will rather perform a qualitative narrative presentation of POR/ACPs and depict their relevant elements per years and Tables mapping regulatory structures (e.g. States, Provinces, Boards, Health Institutions). PUBLICATION AND ETHICS Our results will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and also presented at national and international conferences. Given this review is a secondary investigation of already published and/or openly available sources, programs, protocols, policy and statements, no ethical approvals is required. KEYWORDS Patient Oriented Research, Patient Research Engagement, Patient Centered Research, Health Institutions, Hospital, University, POR: Assessment, Evaluation, Criteria, Accreditation, Protocols, Programs, Review
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.
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 | 0,013 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,013 | 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 découle