工作残疾利益相关者之间或与研究人员可能没有相同的理解和解决方案,造成误解并阻碍有关预防工作残疾的解决方案的合作。为了减少这种差异,这项研究试图在利益相关者和研究人员之间建立一个共同的词汇,使用跨学科研究框架。
使用了基于建构主义方法的共识方法。采用理论抽样方法来确定代表工作残疾范式中四个系统之一的研究人员或利益相关者。使用基于Web的问卷评估了关键术语的初步定义。它记录了参与者与每个术语在该领域的包含和相关性的协议级别,以及定义的清晰度,同时征求对其他术语或更清晰定义的建议。在小组会议上讨论了分歧,就最终术语和定义达成共识。
代表患者的11个利益相关者,雇主,工会,医疗保健专业人员,以及立法和保险制度,还有10名多学科研究人员,参与。问卷就49个术语的包含和定义达成了初步共识,和109条建议,主要是针对修改后的定义(平均=6条建议/术语)。排除了两个初步术语,并添加了三个术语。最终,80个术语及其定义产生了共识。
我们用来建立通用词汇的过程是在跨学科框架内进行的。它需要一种建构主义的方法,促进参与者之间的思想交流,共同建设普遍商定的成果。结果植根于当地情况,从而确保相同的参考点,无论参与者有不同的理解。
Work disability stakeholders may not share the same understanding and solutions among themselves or with researchers, causing misunderstandings and hindering collaboration regarding solutions for preventing work disability. To reduce such differences, this study sought to build a common vocabulary among stakeholders and researchers, using a transdisciplinary research framework.
A
consensus method based on a constructivist approach was used. A theoretical sampling method was applied to identify researchers or stakeholders representing one of the four systems in the work disability paradigm. A preliminary set of definitions for key terms was assessed using a Web-based questionnaire. It documented participants\' level of agreement with each term\'s inclusion and relevance in the field, and the clarity of the definition, while soliciting suggestions for other terms or clearer definitions. Disagreements were discussed at group meetings, yielding
consensus on the final terms and definitions.
Eleven stakeholders representing patients, employers, unions, healthcare professionals, and legislative and insurance systems, along with 10 multidisciplinary researchers, participated. The questionnaire yielded initial
consensus on the inclusion and definitions of 49 terms, and 109 suggestions mostly for modified definitions (average = 6 suggestions/term). Two preliminary terms were excluded and three terms were added. Ultimately, 80 terms and their definitions yielded
consensus.
The process we used to build a common vocabulary was carried out within a transdisciplinary framework. It required a constructivist approach, promoting idea exchanges among participants and co-construction of generally agreed results. The results were rooted in local contexts, thus ensuring the same reference points, regardless of participants\' different understandings.