背景:当可以使用或受益于研究发现的人作为研究团队的合作伙伴时,结果的质量和影响更好。这些人可以包括患者/消费者和不确定为研究人员的临床医生。他们被称为“知识用户”。这种合作方法称为集成知识翻译(IKT)。我们对知识用户参与系统审查的情况知之甚少。我们旨在评估团队成员在更新Cochrane患者决策辅助审查时的有意义参与程度及其对使用IKT方法的看法。
方法:我们进行了前后混合方法研究。我们在两个时间点调查了所有团队成员。在进行系统审查之前,所有参与的团队成员都表示了他们在系统审查过程的12个步骤中的每一个步骤中的参与程度,从“屏幕标题/摘要”到“提供对条款草案的反馈”。之后,他们使用患者参与研究量表(PEIRS-22),从100分(极有意义的参与)到0分(无有意义的参与)的7个领域,报告了他们对每个步骤的参与程度和有意义的参与程度的满意度.我们使用开放式问题征求了他们对IKT方法的经验。我们使用内容分析对定量数据进行了描述性分析,对定性数据进行了分析。我们在研究设计和解释的水平上对数据进行了三角测量。
结果:在21名团队成员中,20人完成了基线调查(95.2%的应答率)和17/20(85.0%的应答率)的后续调查。有11名(55%)研究人员,3(15%)患者/消费者,5名(25%)临床医生-研究人员,和1名(5%)研究生。在基线,参与12个系统评价步骤的首选水平从n=3(15%)(搜索灰色文献来源)到n=20(100%)(提供系统评价文章的反馈)不等.在后续行动中,16名(94.1%)参与者对他们参与这些步骤的程度完全或非常满意。所有人(17,100%)都同意该过程是共同生产的。PEIRS-22总得分显示,大多数参与者报告的参与度非常(13,76.4%)或非常(2,11.8%)。三角数据显示,参与者表示参与了一个融合了不同观点的真实研究过程,产生更好和更相关的产出。报道的挑战是时间,资源,以及与大型集团合作的后勤。
结论:在进行系统评价期间使用IKT方法后,团队成员报告了高水平的有意义的参与。这些结果有助于我们理解共同产生系统评价的方法。
当能够使用或受益于研究结果的人作为研究团队的合作伙伴时,结果的质量和影响更好。这些人可以包括患者/消费者和不确定为研究人员的临床医生。这种合作方法称为集成知识翻译(IKT)。很少使用这种方法,并且很少有关于将其与系统评论一起使用的信息。系统评价是一种研究,通过结合所有现有研究的数据,提供关于给定主题的最佳可用证据。这项研究的目的是了解我们的团队成员在合作进行有关患者决策辅助的系统评价时的投入程度。21名团队成员中有20名参与了这项研究,包括11名研究人员,3名患者/消费者,5名临床医生-研究人员,和1名研究生。作为IKT研究过程的一部分,我们要求团队成员在两个时间点完成关于他们的经历的调查:开始研究之前和研究完成之后。大多数团队成员感到非常或非常参与这个过程。所有团队成员都觉得自己是合作伙伴。他们举例说明了如何实现这一目标。使用IKT方法的优势包括知识共享,包含更多不同的声音,更真实的研究过程,更好和更相关的结果,和个人利益(例如参与的享受)。使用这种方法的缺点是需要更多的时间和资源。三名团队成员说没有缺点。患者/消费者和临床医生可以与研究团队合作并参与进行系统评价。我们的发现可能有助于研究人员将知识用户作为研究团队的平等伙伴。
BACKGROUND: When people who can use or benefit from research findings are engaged as partners on
study teams, the quality and impact of findings are better. These people can include patients/consumers and clinicians who do not identify as researchers. They are referred to as \"knowledge users\". This partnered approach is called integrated knowledge translation (IKT). We know little about knowledge users\' involvement in the conduct of systematic reviews. We aimed to evaluate team members\' degree of meaningful engagement and their perceptions of having used an IKT approach when updating the Cochrane Review of Patient Decision Aids.
METHODS: We conducted a pre-post mixed methods
study. We surveyed all team members at two time points. Before systematic review conduct, all participating team members indicated their preferred level of involvement within each of the 12 steps of the systematic review process from \"Screen titles/abstracts\" to \"Provide feedback on draft article\". After, they reported on their degree of satisfaction with their achieved level of engagement across each step and the degree of meaningful engagement using the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS-22) across 7 domains scored from 100 (extremely meaningful engagement) to 0 (no meaningful engagement). We solicited their experiences with the IKT approach using open-ended questions. We analyzed quantitative data descriptively and qualitative data using content analysis. We triangulated data at the level of
study design and interpretation.
RESULTS: Of 21 team members, 20 completed the baseline survey (95.2% response rate) and 17/20 (85.0% response rate) the follow-up survey. There were 11 (55%) researchers, 3 (15%) patients/consumers, 5 (25%) clinician-researchers, and 1 (5%) graduate student. At baseline, preferred level of involvement in the 12 systematic review steps varied from n = 3 (15%) (search grey literature sources) to n = 20 (100%) (provide feedback on the systematic review article). At follow-up, 16 (94.1%) participants were totally or very satisfied with the extent to which they were involved in these steps. All (17, 100%) agreed that the process was co-production. Total PEIRS-22 scores revealed most participants reported extremely (13, 76.4%) or very (2, 11.8%) meaningful degree of engagement. Triangulated data revealed that participants indicated benefit to having been engaged in an authentic research process that incorporated diverse perspectives, resulting in better and more relevant outputs. Reported challenges were about time, resources, and the logistics of collaborating with a large group.
CONCLUSIONS: Following the use of an IKT approach during the conduct of a systematic review, team members reported high levels of meaningful engagement. These results contribute to our understanding of ways to co-produce systematic reviews.
When people who can use or benefit from research findings are engaged as partners on study teams, the quality and impact of findings are better. These people can include patients/consumers and clinicians who do not identify as researchers. This partnered approach is called integrated knowledge translation (IKT). This approach is rarely used and there is little information about using it with systematic reviews. A systematic review is a type of study that provides the best available evidence on a given topic by combining data from all existing studies. The aim of this study was to find out how engaged our team members felt when partnering on our systematic review about patient decision aids. Twenty of 21 team members participated in the study, including 11 researchers, 3 patients/consumers, 5 clinician-researchers, and 1 graduate student. We asked our team members to complete a survey about their experience as part of our IKT research process at two time points: before starting the study and after the
study was done. Most team members felt extremely or very engaged in the process. All team members felt like partners. They gave examples of how this was achieved. Advantages to using the IKT approach included knowledge sharing, inclusion of more diverse voices, a more authentic research process, better and more relevant results, and personal benefits (e.g. enjoyment from being involved). Disadvantages to using this approach was that it took more time and resources. Three team members said there were no disadvantages. It is possible for patients/consumers and clinicians to partner and feel engaged with research teams doing systematic reviews. Our findings may help researchers engage knowledge users as equal partners on
study teams.