全科医生对共享全科数据用于研究的看法:范围界定审查协议。

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES JBI evidence synthesis Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.11124/JBIES-23-00317
Heidi Green, Belinda Fabrianesi, Lucy Carolan, Annette Braunack-Mayer
{"title":"全科医生对共享全科数据用于研究的看法:范围界定审查协议。","authors":"Heidi Green, Belinda Fabrianesi, Lucy Carolan, Annette Braunack-Mayer","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00317","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this scoping review is to understand the range and types of evidence in relation to the views of general practitioner and other general practice staff on sharing general practice data for research purposes.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The use of general practice data for research has the potential to drive transformative improvements in health care. The vast amount of patient data collected in general practice is valuable and provides researchers with data to conduct large-scale studies and generate evidence that can inform policy decisions, support the development of personalized medicine, and enhance patient outcomes. However, despite there being clear benefits to using general practice data for research, there are also potential harms, such as data misuse, loss of trust between the general practitioner and patient, and data breaches.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>This scoping review will focus on the views of general practice staff, including general practitioners, practice nurses, and practice managers, about sharing general practice data for the purposes of research. This scoping review will exclude sources of evidence that are conducted outside of the general practice setting, and papers that report on public, patient, or community views on data sharing.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with JBI methodology for scoping reviews. A 3-step search strategy will be used to acquire both published and unpublished sources of evidence. Two reviewers will independently select sources of evidence in line with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. No limits on the date of the search or language will be applied. Data will be extracted and the results will be summarized descriptively and presented in a tabular format.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>Open Science Framework https://osf.io/49yw5.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"2185-2191"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Views of general practice staff on sharing general practice data for research: a scoping review protocol.\",\"authors\":\"Heidi Green, Belinda Fabrianesi, Lucy Carolan, Annette Braunack-Mayer\",\"doi\":\"10.11124/JBIES-23-00317\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this scoping review is to understand the range and types of evidence in relation to the views of general practitioner and other general practice staff on sharing general practice data for research purposes.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The use of general practice data for research has the potential to drive transformative improvements in health care. The vast amount of patient data collected in general practice is valuable and provides researchers with data to conduct large-scale studies and generate evidence that can inform policy decisions, support the development of personalized medicine, and enhance patient outcomes. However, despite there being clear benefits to using general practice data for research, there are also potential harms, such as data misuse, loss of trust between the general practitioner and patient, and data breaches.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>This scoping review will focus on the views of general practice staff, including general practitioners, practice nurses, and practice managers, about sharing general practice data for the purposes of research. This scoping review will exclude sources of evidence that are conducted outside of the general practice setting, and papers that report on public, patient, or community views on data sharing.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with JBI methodology for scoping reviews. A 3-step search strategy will be used to acquire both published and unpublished sources of evidence. Two reviewers will independently select sources of evidence in line with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. No limits on the date of the search or language will be applied. Data will be extracted and the results will be summarized descriptively and presented in a tabular format.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>Open Science Framework https://osf.io/49yw5.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36399,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JBI evidence synthesis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2185-2191\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JBI evidence synthesis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-23-00317\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBI evidence synthesis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-23-00317","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本范围界定综述旨在了解与全科医生和其他全科医务人员对为研究目的共享全科数据的看法有关的证据范围和类型:将全科数据用于研究有可能推动医疗保健的变革性改善。全科医生收集的大量患者数据非常宝贵,可为研究人员开展大规模研究提供数据,并生成可为政策决策提供依据的证据,支持个性化医疗的发展,提高患者的治疗效果。然而,尽管将全科数据用于研究有明显的好处,但也存在潜在的危害,如数据滥用、全科医生与患者之间失去信任以及数据泄露等:本范围界定综述将重点关注全科医生、执业护士和执业经理等全科医务人员对为研究目的共享全科数据的看法。本范围界定综述将排除在全科医学环境之外进行的证据来源,以及报告公众、患者或社区对数据共享看法的论文:本次范围界定综述将按照 JBI 范围界定综述方法进行。我们将采用三步检索策略来获取已发表和未发表的证据来源。两名独立审查员将根据纳入和排除标准选择证据来源。检索日期和语言不限。将对数据进行提取,并对结果进行描述性总结,以表格形式呈现:开放科学框架 https://osf.io/49yw5。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Views of general practice staff on sharing general practice data for research: a scoping review protocol.

Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to understand the range and types of evidence in relation to the views of general practitioner and other general practice staff on sharing general practice data for research purposes.

Introduction: The use of general practice data for research has the potential to drive transformative improvements in health care. The vast amount of patient data collected in general practice is valuable and provides researchers with data to conduct large-scale studies and generate evidence that can inform policy decisions, support the development of personalized medicine, and enhance patient outcomes. However, despite there being clear benefits to using general practice data for research, there are also potential harms, such as data misuse, loss of trust between the general practitioner and patient, and data breaches.

Inclusion criteria: This scoping review will focus on the views of general practice staff, including general practitioners, practice nurses, and practice managers, about sharing general practice data for the purposes of research. This scoping review will exclude sources of evidence that are conducted outside of the general practice setting, and papers that report on public, patient, or community views on data sharing.

Methods: This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with JBI methodology for scoping reviews. A 3-step search strategy will be used to acquire both published and unpublished sources of evidence. Two reviewers will independently select sources of evidence in line with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. No limits on the date of the search or language will be applied. Data will be extracted and the results will be summarized descriptively and presented in a tabular format.

Review registration: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/49yw5.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JBI evidence synthesis
JBI evidence synthesis Nursing-Nursing (all)
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
3.70%
发文量
218
期刊最新文献
Value-based outcome evaluation methods used by occupational therapists in primary care: a scoping review. Parents' and guardians' experiences of barriers and facilitators in accessing autism spectrum disorder diagnostic services for their children: a qualitative systematic review. Evidence on the accreditation of health professionals' education in the WHO Africa region: a scoping review protocol. Barriers and facilitators to designing, maintaining, and utilizing rare disease patient registries: a scoping review protocol. Supporting professional practice transition in undergraduate nursing education: a scoping review protocol.
×
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:481959085
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