背景:青年参与研究,其中年轻人参与研究不仅仅是作为人类受试者参与,作为一种研究方法越来越受欢迎。然而,系统和深思熟虑的理论建设受到了限制。我们进行了系统的回顾,以确定和综合理论,已应用于青年参与健康研究的模型和框架,包括心理健康。
方法:六个学术数据库(MEDLINE,PsycINFO,Embase,PubMed,Scopus,CINAHL)和灰色文献进行了相关研究。通过祖先和后代搜索进行引文跟踪。最终搜索于2023年2月7日完成。根据解释学分析和解释的原则,在叙事综合中总结了研究结果。结果报告符合PRISMA(系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目)2020年声明。
结果:在确定的1156条记录中,包括16篇论文,我们从中提取了命名理论(n=6),用于青年参与健康研究的内隐理论(n=5)和模型和框架(n=20)。我们确定了明确陈述的理论,并提出了更隐含地提出的理论。模型和框架根据其主要特征分为四类:以功率为中心(n=8),以过程为中心(n=7),以影响为中心(n=3)和以公平为中心(n=2)。在健康相关研究中,很少有框架(n=5)进行实证检验。
结论:青年参与研究的理论发展状况仍在不断发展。在这次系统审查中,我们确定了理论,用于青年参与健康研究的模型和框架。本系统综述的结果为那些寻求发展和加强青年参与自己研究的人提供了一系列资源。
■作为患者参与研究的青年没有参与计划或进行系统评价。然而,20多岁到20多岁的青年研究人员领导了这项计划,审查的实施和解释。作为后续工作的一部分,我们成立了一个青年顾问委员会,以发展一个由青年主导的知识动员,旨在为有经验的青年受众提供参与研究的经验。
BACKGROUND: Youth engagement in research, wherein youth are involved in the research beyond mere participation as human subjects, is growing and becoming more popular as an approach to research. However, systematic and deliberate
theory-building has been limited. We conducted a systematic review to identify and synthesize theories, models and frameworks that have been applied in the engagement of youth in health research, including mental health.
METHODS: Six academic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL) and the grey literature were searched for relevant studies. Citation tracking was conducted through ancestry and descendancy searches. The final search was completed on 7 February 2023. Findings were summarized in a narrative synthesis informed by principles of hermeneutic analysis and interpretation. Reporting of results is in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 Statement.
RESULTS: Of the 1156 records identified, 16 papers were included, from which we extracted named theories (n = 6), implicit theories (n = 5) and models and frameworks (n = 20) used for youth engagement in health research. We identified theories that were explicitly stated and surfaced theories that were more implicitly suggested. Models and frameworks were organized into four categories based on their principal features: power-focused (n = 8), process-focused (n = 7), impact-focused (n = 3) and equity-focused (n = 2). Few frameworks (n = 5) were empirically tested in health-related research.
CONCLUSIONS: The state of theoretical development in youth engagement in research is still evolving. In this systematic review, we identified theories, models and frameworks used for youth engagement in health research. Findings from this systematic review offer a range of resources to those who seek to develop and strengthen youth engagement in their own research.
UNASSIGNED: Youth engaged as patients in the research were not involved in planning or conducting the systematic review. However, youth researchers in their early to mid-20s led the planning, implementation and interpretation of the review. As part of subsequent work, we formed a youth advisory board to develop a youth-led knowledge mobilization intended for an audience of youth with lived experience of being engaged as patients in research.