Dataset Information

Priorities of patients, caregivers and health-care professionals for health research - A systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Background: Based on subjective experience, patients can identify research priorities important for health services research. A systematic method for priority setting has been developed by the James Lind Alliance.

Objective: This article reviews the literature on the research priorities of patients, caregivers and health-care professionals and presents the prioritized research themes and prioritization methods used.

Search strategy: Three electronic databases were searched on 22 May 2018. The search was not limited to any time period or language.

Inclusion criteria: The included studies reported the identification and prioritization of research priorities involving patients, relatives and caregivers. Each included paper addressed a specific ICD-coded health problem, and at least one-third of the sample involved in the prioritization process was affected by the health problem.

Data extraction and synthesis: The 10 top-ranked research priorities were included in the thematic analysis. With an inductive approach, a system of identified themes and subthemes was developed from the research priorities. Each research priority was assigned to one research theme.

Main results: The priority lists of 34 publications involving 331 research priorities were included. Nine main themes represent the content of the research priorities. The most frequently represented main themes are 'Treatment', 'Patients' and 'Health condition'. The distribution of the research priorities varied depending on the health conditions and prioritization methods.

Discussion and conclusions: This review provides a comprehensive overview of the overarching research themes in research priorities of affected individuals. The results can guide future patient-oriented research.

SUBMITTER: Levelink M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7696132 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Priorities of patients, caregivers and health-care professionals for health research - A systematic review.

Levelink Michael M Voigt-Barbarowicz Mona M Brütt Anna Levke AL

Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy 20200709 5

<h4>Background</h4>Based on subjective experience, patients can identify research priorities important for health services research. A systematic method for priority setting has been developed by the James Lind Alliance.<h4>Objective</h4>This article reviews the literature on the research priorities of patients, caregivers and health-care professionals and presents the prioritized research themes and prioritization methods used.<h4>Search strategy</h4>Three electronic databases were searched on ...[more]

PMID: 32643854

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDigitalization is not fully implemented in clinical practice, and several factors have been identified as possible barriers, including the competencies of health care professionals. However, no summary of the available evidence has been provided to date to depict digital health competencies that have been investigated among health care professionals, the tools used in assessing such competencies, and the effective interventions to improve them.ObjectiveThis review aims to summarize digital health competencies investigated to date and the tools used to assess them among health care professionals.MethodsA systematic review based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist was performed. The MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, and Scopus databases were accessed up to September 4, 2021. Studies assessing digital health competencies with quantitative designs, targeting health care professionals, and written in English were included. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute tools.ResultsA total of 26 studies, published from 1999 to 2021, met the inclusion criteria, and the majority were cross sectional in design, while only 2 were experimental study designs. Most studies were assessed with moderate to low methodological quality; 4 categories and 9 subcategories of investigated digital health competencies have been identified. The most investigated category was "Self-rated competencies," followed by "Psychological and emotional aspects toward digital technologies," "Use of digital technologies," and "Knowledge about digital technologies." In 35% (9/26) of the studies, a previously validated tool was used to measure the competencies assessed, while others developed ad hoc questionnaires.ConclusionsMainly descriptive studies with issues regarding methodology quality have been produced to date investigating 4 main categories of digital health competencies mostly with nonvalidated tools. Competencies investigated might be considered while designing curricula for undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing education processes, whereas the methodological lacks detected might be addressed with future research. There is a need to expand research on psychological and emotional elements and the ability to use digital technology to self-learn and teach others.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42021282775; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=282775.

Project description:BackgroundPatients and other stakeholders are increasingly engaging as partners in research, although how they perceive such experiences, particularly over the long term, is not well understood.ObjectiveTo characterize how participants from a nondialysis chronic kidney disease (CKD) research priority-setting project conducted 2 years previously perceived the significance of their involvement.DesignQualitative descriptive study with semi-structured, individual interviews.SettingParticipants resided across Canada.ParticipantsEligible participants included stakeholders (ie, patients with nondialysis CKD, caregivers, health care professionals, and policy makers) who had taken part in a prior CKD research priority-setting project.MeasurementsWe explored stakeholder experiences and perspectives on engagement in CKD research prioritization.MethodsWe purposively sampled across stakeholder roles and engagement types (ie, involvement in the priority-setting workshop, wiki online tool, and/or steering committee). All interviews were conducted by a single investigator by telephone or face-to-face, and audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim. The data were inductively coded and analyzed by 2 investigators using a thematic analysis approach.ResultsWe conducted 23 interviews across stakeholder roles and engagement types. Participants appreciated the integration of distinct stakeholder communities of patients, researchers, and health care professionals that occurred through engagement in research priority setting. Their opportunity to interact with patients and others directly impacted by CKD outside of the clinical setting contributed to an enhanced understanding of the CKD lived experience and value of patient-oriented research. This interaction helped participants refine and refocus their commitment to patient-centered CKD care and research, characterized by enhanced knowledge and confidence (patients/caregivers), adaptations to existing clinical practices and policies (health care providers/policy makers), and subsequent research engagement.LimitationsThe views of participants may not reflect those of individuals in other research or health care settings.ConclusionsStakeholder engagement in nondialysis CKD research prioritization encouraged the integration of stakeholder communities, an appreciation of the CKD experience, and a refocusing of participants' commitment to research and care. Findings highlight considerations for future health research engaging stakeholders, particularly those living with CKD, as research partners.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Technology-enhanced learning (TEL) programs are increasingly seen as the way in which education for health care professionals can be transformed, giving access to effective ongoing learning and training even where time or geographical barriers exist. Given the increasing emphasis on this mode of educational support for health care practitioners, it is vital that we can effectively evaluate and measure impact to ensure that TEL programs are effective and fit for purpose. This paper examines the current evidence base for the first time, in relation to the evaluation of TEL programs for health care professionals. OBJECTIVE:We conducted a systematic review of the current literature relating to the evaluation of TEL programs for health care professionals and critically appraised the quality of the studies. METHODS:This review employed specific search criteria to identify research studies that included evaluation of TEL for health care professionals. The databases searched included Medline Ovid, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature Plus Advanced, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, ZETOC, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Explore Digital Library, Allied and Complementary Medicine, and Education Resources Information Center between January 2006 and January 2017. An additional hand search for relevant articles from reference lists was undertaken. Each of the studies identified was critically appraised for quality using the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool. This approach produced a percentage total score for each study across specified categories. A proportion of the studies were independently assessed by an additional two reviewers. RESULTS:The review identified 21 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The studies included scored totals across eight categories within a range of 37%-95% and an average score of 68%. Studies that measured TEL using learner satisfaction surveys, or combined pretest and posttest knowledge score testing with learner satisfaction surveys, were found to be the most common types of TEL evaluations evident in the literature. The studies reviewed had low scores across reporting on ethical matters, design, and data collection categories. CONCLUSIONS:There continues to be a need to develop effective and standard TEL evaluation tools, and good quality studies that describe effective evaluation of TEL education for health care professionals. Studies often fail to provide sufficient detail to support transferability or direct future TEL health care education programs.

Project description:BackgroundBuilding the capacity of allied health professionals to engage in research has been recognised as a priority due to the many benefits it brings for patients, healthcare professionals, healthcare organisations and society more broadly. There is increasing recognition of the need for a coordinated multi-strategy approach to building research capacity. The aim of this systematic review was to identify existing integrated models and frameworks which guide research capacity building for allied health professionals working in publicly funded secondary and tertiary healthcare organisations.MethodsA systematic review was undertaken searching five databases (Medline, CINAHL, Embase, AustHealth and Web of Science) using English language restrictions. Two authors independently screened and reviewed studies, extracted data and performed quality assessments using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Content and thematic analysis methods were used to code and categorise the data.ResultsA total of 8492 unique records were screened by title and abstract, of which 20 were reviewed in full-text. One quantitative study and five qualitative studies were included, each of which describing a research capacity building framework. Three interconnected and interdependent themes were identified as being essential for research capacity building, including 'supporting clinicians in research', 'working together' and 'valuing research for excellence'.ConclusionsThe findings of this systematic review have been synthesised to develop a succinct and integrated framework for research capacity building which is relevant for allied health professionals working in publicly funded secondary and tertiary healthcare organisations. This framework provides further evidence to suggest that research capacity building strategies are interlinked and interdependent and should be implemented as part of an integrated 'whole of system' approach, with commitment and support from all levels of leadership and management. Future directions for research include using behaviour change and knowledge translation theories to guide the implementation and evaluation of this new framework.Trial registrationThe protocol for this systematic review has been registered with PROSPERO. The registration number is CRD42018087476 .

Dataset Information

Priorities of patients, caregivers and health-care professionals for health research - A systematic review.

Publications

Priorities of patients, caregivers and health-care professionals for health research - A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets