■有影响力,基于证据的监测解决方案,预防,急性护理,卒中幸存者的康复需要解决卒中的高全球负担.患者和公众参与(PPI),在那里,病人,他们的家人,公众作为研究伙伴积极参与,增强了相关性,信誉,以及卒中相关研究的影响。
■此范围审查,遵守PRISMA范围审查指南,旨在确定和总结PPI目前如何在使用参与式方法的经验性卒中研究中实施和报告。
■在Medline开发并实施了全面的搜索策略,CINAHL,EMBASE,PSynchINFO和Cochrane电子数据库,辅以灰色文献检索。英语实证中风研究论文,包括从2014年到2023年的发布,并记录PPI活动。在确认的18143篇原始论文中,筛选了此时间窗口中匹配的2,824份全文手稿。只有2%(n=72)的这些人在实证研究中直接报告了嵌入的PPI活动。大多数是定性设计(60%),在高收入国家(96%)进行。只有一项纳入研究起源于发展中国家,中风负担最高的地方。大多数研究(94%)提供了一些关于与PPI合作伙伴一起开展的活动的信息,主要集中在研究设计(57%)和管理(64%),只有4%的研究将PPI纳入从资助申请到传播的所有研究周期阶段。当检查研究是否符合患者和公众参与报告指南(GRIPP2)简短清单时,仅11%的纳入研究100%合规.21项研究(29%)报告了将PPI纳入中风研究的障碍和促进因素。组织,真正的伙伴关系和经验丰富的PPI代表是共同的促进者,发现的障碍反映了对充足资金的担忧,所需的时间和观点的多样性。观察到PPI影响的正报告偏差,总结为将患者的观点保持在研究过程的中心,改善对研究参与者的护理,验证研究结果,并改进复杂研究概念的沟通/总结。
■PPI未被充分利用,并且在当前的经验卒中研究中报告不一致。PPI必须更广泛地采用,尤其是在低收入和中等收入国家。为了支持PPI的广泛采用,需要有共识驱动的标准来支持其广泛采用。
UNASSIGNED: Impactful, evidence-based solutions in surveillance, prevention, acute care, and rehabilitation for stroke survivors are required to address the high global burden of stroke. Patient and public involvement (PPI), where patients, their families, and the public are actively involved as research partners, enhances the relevance, credibility, and impact of stroke-related research.
UNASSIGNED: This scoping review, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Scoping Review guidelines, aims to identify and summarize how PPI is currently implemented and reported in empirical stroke research using a participatory approach.
UNASSIGNED: A comprehensive search strategy was developed and implemented across Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsynchINFO, and Cochrane electronic databases, supplemented by gray literature searches. Empirical stroke research articles in the English language, published from 2014 up to 2023, and documenting PPI activity were included. Of the 18,143 original articles identified, 2824 full-text manuscripts matching from this time window were screened. Only 2% (n = 72) of these directly reported embedded PPI activity in empirical research. The majority were qualitative in design (60%) and conducted in high-income countries (96%). Only one included study originated from a developing country, where the burden of stroke is highest. Most studies (94%) provided some information about the activities carried out with their PPI partners, mainly centered on the study design (57%) and management (64%), with only 4% of studies integrating PPI across all research cycle phases from funding application to dissemination. When studies were examined for compliance with the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) short-form checklist, only 11% of included studies were 100% compliant. Twenty-one studies (29%) reported barriers and facilitators to including PPI in stroke research. Organization, authentic partnership, and experienced PPI representatives were common facilitators and identified barriers reflected concerns around adequate funding, time required, and diversity in perspectives. A positive reporting bias for PPI impact was observed, summarized as keeping the patient perspective central to the research process, improved care of study participants, validation of study findings, and improved communication/lay-summaries of complex research concepts.
UNASSIGNED: PPI is underutilized and inconsistently reported in current empirical stroke research. PPI must become more widely adopted, notably in low- and middle-income countries. Consensus-driven standards for inclusion of PPI by funding organizations and publishers are required to support its widespread adoption.