社区参与研究:健康研究定量参与测量量表的更新系统综述。

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Evaluation & the Health Professions Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-26 DOI:10.1177/01632787231203346
Barbara Gordon, Kristin M Van De Griend, Victoria L Scharp, Hannah Ellis, Mary A Nies
{"title":"社区参与研究:健康研究定量参与测量量表的更新系统综述。","authors":"Barbara Gordon, Kristin M Van De Griend, Victoria L Scharp, Hannah Ellis, Mary A Nies","doi":"10.1177/01632787231203346","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Though the interest in community engagement in research (CEnR) protocols has increased, studies reporting on the findings of tested CEnR engagement measurement scales for health studies are sparse. A systematic review was conducted from January 1 to March 1, 2023, to identify validated, quantitative CEnR engagement measurement tools for health studies. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology was employed. The rigor of scale development, testing, and implementation was explored, and a `best practices evaluation conducted. Themes on the readiness of scales for implementation in health research studies were narratively compiled. Nineteen studies met the search inclusion criteria-reporting on the development, testing, and implementation of seven CEnR engagement measurement scales for health studies. Scale implementation studies precipitated only two of the studies. None of the scales followed the rigorous process dictated in best practices; however, at this time, three scales have gone through the most robust testing processes. Advancement of the science of engagement measurement requires consensus on terminology, application of best practices for scale development and testing protocols, and consistency of reporting findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":12315,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","volume":" ","pages":"291-308"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Community Engagement in Research: An Updated Systematic Review of Quantitative Engagement Measurement Scales for Health Studies.\",\"authors\":\"Barbara Gordon, Kristin M Van De Griend, Victoria L Scharp, Hannah Ellis, Mary A Nies\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01632787231203346\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Though the interest in community engagement in research (CEnR) protocols has increased, studies reporting on the findings of tested CEnR engagement measurement scales for health studies are sparse. A systematic review was conducted from January 1 to March 1, 2023, to identify validated, quantitative CEnR engagement measurement tools for health studies. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology was employed. The rigor of scale development, testing, and implementation was explored, and a `best practices evaluation conducted. Themes on the readiness of scales for implementation in health research studies were narratively compiled. Nineteen studies met the search inclusion criteria-reporting on the development, testing, and implementation of seven CEnR engagement measurement scales for health studies. Scale implementation studies precipitated only two of the studies. None of the scales followed the rigorous process dictated in best practices; however, at this time, three scales have gone through the most robust testing processes. Advancement of the science of engagement measurement requires consensus on terminology, application of best practices for scale development and testing protocols, and consistency of reporting findings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12315,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evaluation & the Health Professions\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"291-308\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evaluation & the Health Professions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787231203346\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/26 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787231203346","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管人们对社区参与研究(CEnR)协议的兴趣有所增加,但关于健康研究的CEnR参与测量量表测试结果的研究报告却很少。2023年1月1日至3月1日进行了一项系统审查,以确定用于健康研究的经验证的定量CEnR参与测量工具。采用系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)方法。对规模开发、测试和实施的严格性进行了探索,并进行了“最佳实践”评估。对健康研究中实施量表的准备情况主题进行了叙述性汇编。19项研究符合搜索纳入标准,报告了用于健康研究的七种CEnR参与测量量表的开发、测试和实施情况。规模实施研究只促成了其中两项研究。没有一个比额表遵循最佳做法规定的严格程序;然而,此时,三个量表已经经历了最稳健的测试过程。参与度测量科学的进步需要在术语、规模开发和测试协议最佳实践的应用以及报告结果的一致性方面达成共识。
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
Community Engagement in Research: An Updated Systematic Review of Quantitative Engagement Measurement Scales for Health Studies.

Though the interest in community engagement in research (CEnR) protocols has increased, studies reporting on the findings of tested CEnR engagement measurement scales for health studies are sparse. A systematic review was conducted from January 1 to March 1, 2023, to identify validated, quantitative CEnR engagement measurement tools for health studies. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology was employed. The rigor of scale development, testing, and implementation was explored, and a `best practices evaluation conducted. Themes on the readiness of scales for implementation in health research studies were narratively compiled. Nineteen studies met the search inclusion criteria-reporting on the development, testing, and implementation of seven CEnR engagement measurement scales for health studies. Scale implementation studies precipitated only two of the studies. None of the scales followed the rigorous process dictated in best practices; however, at this time, three scales have gone through the most robust testing processes. Advancement of the science of engagement measurement requires consensus on terminology, application of best practices for scale development and testing protocols, and consistency of reporting 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
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Evaluation & the Health Professions is a peer-reviewed, quarterly journal that provides health-related professionals with state-of-the-art methodological, measurement, and statistical tools for conceptualizing the etiology of health promotion and problems, and developing, implementing, and evaluating health programs, teaching and training services, and products that pertain to a myriad of health dimensions. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 31 days
期刊最新文献
Analyzing the Effects of a Repeated Reading Intervention on Reading Fluency With Generalized Linear Mixed Models. Evaluation of a Parenting Program for Mothers With a Borderline Personality Disorder: A Multiple Baseline Single-Case Experimental Design Study. Single-Case Study of the Feasibility of Parent Training and Change in Parenting in Comparison to Baseline, in Adolescents With a Major Depressive Disorder. Using Generalized Linear Mixed Models in the Analysis of Count and Rate Data in Single-case Eperimental Designs: A Step-by-step Tutorial. Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Low Back Activity Confidence Scale (LoBACS).
×
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