[A qualitative interview study to streamline integration of patient participation in research].

IF 0.8 4区 医学 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Gesundheitswesen Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-18 DOI:10.1055/a-2445-5498
Anna-Francesca Jessica Di Meo, Feyza Gökce, Lisa Pfeiffer, Clara Teusen, Jan Gehrmann, Caroline Jung-Sievers, Antonius Schneider, Jochen Gensichen, Karolina De Valerio, Gabriele Pitschel-Walz
{"title":"[A qualitative interview study to streamline integration of patient participation in research].","authors":"Anna-Francesca Jessica Di Meo, Feyza Gökce, Lisa Pfeiffer, Clara Teusen, Jan Gehrmann, Caroline Jung-Sievers, Antonius Schneider, Jochen Gensichen, Karolina De Valerio, Gabriele Pitschel-Walz","doi":"10.1055/a-2445-5498","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Integration of the patient perspective in research projects is essential to strengthen the relevance and quality of research results. In order to rectify the lack of structured procedures for patient integration in German research projects, this study summarises the currently available knowledge in a simplified practice-oriented checklist for researchers.Through 13 semi-structured qualitative interviews conducted with members of a research group in December 2022, this study explored patient participation possibilities and barriers. The inductive-deductive coding and analysis in the software MAXQDA led to a standardized checklist development for seamless patient integration across similar contexts and research fields.Of 13 experts, nine researchers (69%) incorporated patient insights into their work, covering topics, concepts, focus prioritization, and study materials. Four researchers (31%) faced barriers due to the absence of guidelines. More than 90% recognized potential for patient integration in topic prioritization, concept formation, evaluation, result review, and interpretation. Researchers highlighted barriers such as patient's limited scientific basis, restricted access, and knowledge gaps in patient interaction. Among the respondents, 56% pointed to training needs and 44% to structural barriers such as workload, unclear funding, guidelines and stakeholder involvement. The resulting checklist includes six sub-categories, each with an average of four sub-items, which operationalise the integration process.Current research lacks effective patient inclusion processes due to inadequate access, tools, and knowledge. While immediate training can address some challenges, longer-term changes in policy and funding are necessary. With the new checklist, researchers receive a support tool to integrate the patient perspective in their projects in a systematic manner.</p>","PeriodicalId":47653,"journal":{"name":"Gesundheitswesen","volume":" ","pages":"318-327"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12043378/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gesundheitswesen","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2445-5498","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Integration of the patient perspective in research projects is essential to strengthen the relevance and quality of research results. In order to rectify the lack of structured procedures for patient integration in German research projects, this study summarises the currently available knowledge in a simplified practice-oriented checklist for researchers.Through 13 semi-structured qualitative interviews conducted with members of a research group in December 2022, this study explored patient participation possibilities and barriers. The inductive-deductive coding and analysis in the software MAXQDA led to a standardized checklist development for seamless patient integration across similar contexts and research fields.Of 13 experts, nine researchers (69%) incorporated patient insights into their work, covering topics, concepts, focus prioritization, and study materials. Four researchers (31%) faced barriers due to the absence of guidelines. More than 90% recognized potential for patient integration in topic prioritization, concept formation, evaluation, result review, and interpretation. Researchers highlighted barriers such as patient's limited scientific basis, restricted access, and knowledge gaps in patient interaction. Among the respondents, 56% pointed to training needs and 44% to structural barriers such as workload, unclear funding, guidelines and stakeholder involvement. The resulting checklist includes six sub-categories, each with an average of four sub-items, which operationalise the integration process.Current research lacks effective patient inclusion processes due to inadequate access, tools, and knowledge. While immediate training can address some challenges, longer-term changes in policy and funding are necessary. With the new checklist, researchers receive a support tool to integrate the patient perspective in their projects in a systematic manner.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
制定患者参与研究的核对表--抑郁症研究生课程中的定性研究。
在研究项目中整合患者视角对于加强研究结果的相关性和质量至关重要。为了纠正德国研究项目中缺乏结构化的患者整合程序,本研究总结了目前可用的知识,为研究人员简化了面向实践的检查表。通过对研究小组成员进行的13次半结构化定性访谈,本研究探讨了患者参与的可能性和障碍。MAXQDA软件中的归纳演绎编码和分析导致了标准化检查表的开发,以便在类似的背景和研究领域中无缝整合患者。在13名专家中,9名研究人员(69%)将患者的见解纳入他们的工作,涵盖主题、概念、重点优先级和研究材料。四名研究人员(31%)因缺乏指南而面临障碍。超过90%的人认识到在主题优先排序、概念形成、评估、结果回顾和解释方面患者整合的潜力。研究人员强调了一些障碍,如患者的科学基础有限、访问受限以及患者互动中的知识差距。在受访者中,56%的人指出了培训需求,44%的人指出了工作量、资金不明确、指导方针和利益相关者参与等结构性障碍。最终的检查表包括六个子类别,每个类别平均有四个子项,这些子项可操作集成过程。由于获取途径、工具和知识不足,目前的研究缺乏有效的患者纳入过程。虽然立即培训可以解决一些挑战,但政策和资金的长期变化是必要的。有了新的检查表,研究人员获得了一个支持工具,以系统的方式将患者的观点整合到他们的项目中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Gesundheitswesen
Gesundheitswesen PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
18.20%
发文量
308
期刊介绍: The health service informs you comprehensively and up-to-date about the most important topics of the health care system. In addition to guidelines, overviews and comments, you will find current research results and contributions to CME-certified continuing education and training. The journal offers a scientific discussion forum and a platform for communications from professional societies. The content quality is ensured by a publisher body, the expert advisory board and other experts in the peer review process.
期刊最新文献
[Balancing maximum commitment and challenges: Interdisciplinary networks in outpatient palliative care within the Westphalia-Lippe model - results of a qualitative study]. Testing a model-based approach for planning and regional coordination of hospital service group offerings: A model project in the East Saxony healthcare cluster. Causal inference in health services research: concepts, methods and application perspectives. Cross-sectoral physical activity-related health services: a qualitative study on the tasks and competencies in network coordination using the example of the Network ActiveOncoKids (NAOK). [Satisfaction with support provided by stroke case managers: Results of survey from the perspective of stroke survivors].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1