与医疗保健研究中的专业利益相关者的接触——以英国的痴呆症个性化护理团队(D-PACT)项目为例。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health Expectations Pub Date : 2024-12-24 DOI:10.1111/hex.70133
Basharat Hussain, Hannah Wheat, Tomasina M. Oh, Richard Byng
{"title":"与医疗保健研究中的专业利益相关者的接触——以英国的痴呆症个性化护理团队(D-PACT)项目为例。","authors":"Basharat Hussain,&nbsp;Hannah Wheat,&nbsp;Tomasina M. Oh,&nbsp;Richard Byng","doi":"10.1111/hex.70133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>In this viewpoint we highlight a gap in the literature relating to the involvement of professional stakeholders in healthcare evaluation research.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>Using the Dementia—PersonAlised Care Team (D-PACT) project as an example, we illustrate how professional stakeholder work can serve various functions, from understanding commissioning and policy context to contributing to detail of intervention components.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Outcome</h3>\n \n <p>We argue that identifying these project-specific functions can help researchers to effectively plan when, how and for whom they will engage in professional stakeholder work across the course of an evaluation. In addition, we call for further evidence-based guidance and sufficient allocation of resources (provided by those funding research projects) to support effective stakeholder work.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Such support will not only enhance evaluation findings but also promote continued learning on best practice for professional stakeholder work.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patient or Public Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>Public and patient involvement contributors were involved in the main D-PACT study design, development of data collection tools and interpretation of study findings.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"27 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11668272/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Engagement With Professional Stakeholders in Healthcare Research—The Case of the Dementia PersonAlised Care Team (D-PACT) Project in the United Kingdom\",\"authors\":\"Basharat Hussain,&nbsp;Hannah Wheat,&nbsp;Tomasina M. Oh,&nbsp;Richard Byng\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/hex.70133\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>In this viewpoint we highlight a gap in the literature relating to the involvement of professional stakeholders in healthcare evaluation research.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Method</h3>\\n \\n <p>Using the Dementia—PersonAlised Care Team (D-PACT) project as an example, we illustrate how professional stakeholder work can serve various functions, from understanding commissioning and policy context to contributing to detail of intervention components.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Outcome</h3>\\n \\n <p>We argue that identifying these project-specific functions can help researchers to effectively plan when, how and for whom they will engage in professional stakeholder work across the course of an evaluation. In addition, we call for further evidence-based guidance and sufficient allocation of resources (provided by those funding research projects) to support effective stakeholder work.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Such support will not only enhance evaluation findings but also promote continued learning on best practice for professional stakeholder work.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Patient or Public Contribution</h3>\\n \\n <p>Public and patient involvement contributors were involved in the main D-PACT study design, development of data collection tools and interpretation of study findings.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55070,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Expectations\",\"volume\":\"27 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11668272/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Expectations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70133\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70133","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言:在这个观点中,我们强调了与专业利益相关者参与医疗保健评估研究的文献差距。方法:以痴呆症个性化护理团队(D-PACT)项目为例,我们说明了专业利益相关者的工作如何服务于各种功能,从理解调试和政策背景到为干预组件的细节做出贡献。结果:我们认为,确定这些特定于项目的功能可以帮助研究人员有效地计划何时、如何以及为谁参与评估过程中的专业利益相关者工作。此外,我们呼吁进一步以证据为基础的指导和充足的资源分配(由资助研究项目的机构提供),以支持有效的利益相关者工作。结论:这种支持不仅会加强评估结果,还会促进专业利益相关者工作最佳实践的持续学习。患者或公众贡献:公众和患者参与贡献者参与了主要的D-PACT研究设计、数据收集工具的开发和研究结果的解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Engagement With Professional Stakeholders in Healthcare Research—The Case of the Dementia PersonAlised Care Team (D-PACT) Project in the United Kingdom

Introduction

In this viewpoint we highlight a gap in the literature relating to the involvement of professional stakeholders in healthcare evaluation research.

Method

Using the Dementia—PersonAlised Care Team (D-PACT) project as an example, we illustrate how professional stakeholder work can serve various functions, from understanding commissioning and policy context to contributing to detail of intervention components.

Outcome

We argue that identifying these project-specific functions can help researchers to effectively plan when, how and for whom they will engage in professional stakeholder work across the course of an evaluation. In addition, we call for further evidence-based guidance and sufficient allocation of resources (provided by those funding research projects) to support effective stakeholder work.

Conclusion

Such support will not only enhance evaluation findings but also promote continued learning on best practice for professional stakeholder work.

Patient or Public Contribution

Public and patient involvement contributors were involved in the main D-PACT study design, development of data collection tools and interpretation of study findings.

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
Health Expectations
Health Expectations 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
9.40%
发文量
251
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including: • Person-centred care and quality improvement • Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management • Public perceptions of health services • Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting • Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation • Empowerment and consumerism • Patients'' role in safety and quality • Patient and public role in health services research • Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.
期刊最新文献
Reply to: Amplifying Women's Voices in Menopause Research: The Importance of Inclusive Perspectives [Letter] From Clinics to Communities: Understanding Public Perceptions of Dental Services in Pakistan Taking a Pause: Co-Designing a Reflection Tool for Meaning Creation in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Navigating HOPE (Hypermobile Online Pain managemEnt): Perspectives and Experiences From People With Hypermobile Ehlers–Danlos Syndrome or Hypermobility Spectrum Disorder on a Condition-Specific Online Pain Management Programme Amplifying Women's Voices in Menopause Research: The Importance of Inclusive Perspectives
×
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