Carla M. Bann, Jamie E. Newman, Leslie Clarke, Sandra Russell, Megan Dhawan, Traci Beiersdorfer, Sara DeMauro, Deanne Wilson-Costello, Myriam Peralta-Carcelen, Stephanie Merhar
{"title":"纵向研究中同伴导航员的整合。","authors":"Carla M. Bann, Jamie E. Newman, Leslie Clarke, Sandra Russell, Megan Dhawan, Traci Beiersdorfer, Sara DeMauro, Deanne Wilson-Costello, Myriam Peralta-Carcelen, Stephanie Merhar","doi":"10.1016/j.jogn.2024.11.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To assess consent rates and reasons for refusing consent after the introduction of peer navigators into the Outcomes of Babies With Opioid Exposure (OBOE) Study.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Secondary analysis of data from the OBOE Study, a multisite observational study.</div></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><div>Medical centers in Alabama, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (<em>N</em> = 4).</div></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><div>Data about the use of peer navigators were obtained from the primary study, including 1,255 mothers or caregivers who were approached regarding participation in the study.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We used χ<sup>2</sup> tests to compare study consent rates and reasons for refusing consent before and after the use of peer navigators.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Following the addition of peer navigators, study consent rates significantly improved (29% of 852 before vs. 38% of 403 after; <em>p</em> = .001), and the percentage of potential participants who indicated that they were not interested in sharing information for research significantly decreased (41% of 247 vs. 26% of 115; <em>p</em> = .005).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>We demonstrate the potential effect of peer navigators on consent and interest in sharing information for research in a longitudinal research study. We recommend the inclusion of peer navigators in studies with high-risk populations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54903,"journal":{"name":"Jognn-Journal of Obstetric Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing","volume":"54 2","pages":"Pages 164-169"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Integration of Peer Navigators Into Longitudinal Research\",\"authors\":\"Carla M. Bann, Jamie E. Newman, Leslie Clarke, Sandra Russell, Megan Dhawan, Traci Beiersdorfer, Sara DeMauro, Deanne Wilson-Costello, Myriam Peralta-Carcelen, Stephanie Merhar\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jogn.2024.11.008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To assess consent rates and reasons for refusing consent after the introduction of peer navigators into the Outcomes of Babies With Opioid Exposure (OBOE) Study.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Secondary analysis of data from the OBOE Study, a multisite observational study.</div></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><div>Medical centers in Alabama, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (<em>N</em> = 4).</div></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><div>Data about the use of peer navigators were obtained from the primary study, including 1,255 mothers or caregivers who were approached regarding participation in the study.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We used χ<sup>2</sup> tests to compare study consent rates and reasons for refusing consent before and after the use of peer navigators.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Following the addition of peer navigators, study consent rates significantly improved (29% of 852 before vs. 38% of 403 after; <em>p</em> = .001), and the percentage of potential participants who indicated that they were not interested in sharing information for research significantly decreased (41% of 247 vs. 26% of 115; <em>p</em> = .005).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>We demonstrate the potential effect of peer navigators on consent and interest in sharing information for research in a longitudinal research study. We recommend the inclusion of peer navigators in studies with high-risk populations.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54903,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jognn-Journal of Obstetric Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing\",\"volume\":\"54 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 164-169\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jognn-Journal of Obstetric Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0884217524003435\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jognn-Journal of Obstetric Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0884217524003435","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的：评价阿片类药物暴露（OBOE）婴儿结局研究引入同伴导航员后的同意率和拒绝同意的原因。设计：对OBOE研究数据进行二次分析，这是一项多地点观察性研究。背景：阿拉巴马州、俄亥俄州和宾夕法尼亚州的医疗中心（N = 4）。参与者：从最初的研究中获得同伴导航器的使用数据，包括1255名母亲或照顾者，他们被要求参与研究。方法：采用χ2检验比较使用同伴导航器前后的研究同意率和拒绝同意的原因。结果：加入同伴导航员后，研究同意率显著提高(852例前29% vs. 403例后38%；P = .001)，表明他们对分享研究信息不感兴趣的潜在参与者的百分比显著下降(247人中的41%对115人中的26%；P = .005)。结论：我们在一项纵向研究中证明了同伴导航员对同意和分享研究信息的兴趣的潜在影响。我们建议在高危人群的研究中纳入同伴导航员。
Integration of Peer Navigators Into Longitudinal Research
Objective
To assess consent rates and reasons for refusing consent after the introduction of peer navigators into the Outcomes of Babies With Opioid Exposure (OBOE) Study.
Design
Secondary analysis of data from the OBOE Study, a multisite observational study.
Setting
Medical centers in Alabama, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (N = 4).
Participants
Data about the use of peer navigators were obtained from the primary study, including 1,255 mothers or caregivers who were approached regarding participation in the study.
Methods
We used χ2 tests to compare study consent rates and reasons for refusing consent before and after the use of peer navigators.
Results
Following the addition of peer navigators, study consent rates significantly improved (29% of 852 before vs. 38% of 403 after; p = .001), and the percentage of potential participants who indicated that they were not interested in sharing information for research significantly decreased (41% of 247 vs. 26% of 115; p = .005).
Conclusion
We demonstrate the potential effect of peer navigators on consent and interest in sharing information for research in a longitudinal research study. We recommend the inclusion of peer navigators in studies with high-risk populations.
期刊介绍：
JOGNN is a premier resource for health care professionals committed to clinical scholarship that advances the health care of women and newborns. With a focus on nursing practice, JOGNN addresses the latest research, practice issues, policies, opinions, and trends in the care of women, childbearing families, and newborns.
This peer-reviewed scientific and technical journal is highly respected for groundbreaking articles on important - and sometimes controversial - issues. Articles published in JOGNN emphasize research evidence and clinical practice, building both science and clinical applications. JOGNN seeks clinical, policy and research manuscripts on the evidence supporting current best practice as well as developing or emerging practice trends. A balance of quantitative and qualitative research with an emphasis on biobehavioral outcome studies and intervention trials is desired. Manuscripts are welcomed on all subjects focused on the care of women, childbearing families, and newborns.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
