首页> 外文OA文献 >Working with non-clinical staff to deliver research:lessons from running a wait-list controlled trial (ELSA) of a volunteer befriending service towards the end of life
【2h】

Working with non-clinical staff to deliver research:lessons from running a wait-list controlled trial (ELSA) of a volunteer befriending service towards the end of life

机译:与非临床人员合作进行研究:从生命周期结束时自愿志愿者服务的等待清单对照试验(ELSA)中汲取的教训

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Background: Many palliative care services involve nonclinical staff such as volunteers and administrative staff, and research in these settings should involve them as active research partners. We provide recommendations on involving these people in research, learning from a wait list trial of a volunteer provided befriending intervention. Methods: A wait-list controlled trial investigating volunteer delivered befriending services across 11 sites in the UK. Non-clinical staff are responsible for site trial management and informed consent procedures. Participants are estimated to be in their last year of life, randomly allocated to receive the befriending intervention immediately or after a four week wait. Data collection at baseline, 4, 8 weeks: WHO QOL BREF, Loneliness scale, mMOS-SS, social networks. Intention to treat analysis includes fitting a linear mixed effect model to each outcome variable at 4, 8 and 12 weeks. ISRCTN 12929812 Results: Training for this role includes innovative face to face role play workshops, standard Good Clinical Practice education, and face to face and virtual site visits to check procedural compliance and address issues. Trial initiation matters include acknowledging staff concerns about trial design and involving them trial protocol development, documentation and research procedures. Areas that required acknowledgement and response during the trial include providing support to address issues of informed consent and eligibility, understanding the impact of the ‘wait’ allocation on participants (n=145), staff and volunteers, and integrating volunteer management and feedback into trial procedures. Conclusions: It is possible to run a rigorous and ethical wait-list trial in partnership with non-clinical site staff and volunteers. Key considerations include assessment of the wait period and data collection timing, understanding providing a service in the context of a trial, and clear responsive communications to support staff
机译:背景:许多姑息治疗服务涉及非临床人员,例如志愿者和行政人员,在这些环境中进行的研究应让他们作为积极的研究伙伴。我们提供了有关让这些人参与研究的建议,并从志愿者提供的友善干预的等待名单试验中学习。方法:一项由等待名单控制的试验性志愿者调查在英国的11个站点提供了友情服务。非临床人员负责现场试验管理和知情同意程序。估计参与者处于其生命的最后一年,被随机分配以立即或经过四个星期的等待时间接受友善干预。在基线第4、8周收集数据:WHO QOL BREF,孤独感量表,mMOS-SS,社交网络。治疗意向分析包括在第4、8和12周将线性混合效应模型拟合到每个结果变量。 ISRCTN 12929812结果:此角色的培训包括创新的面对面角色扮演研讨会,标准的良好临床实践教育,面对面和虚拟现场访问,以检查程序的依从性并解决问题。审判启动事项包括确认工作人员对审判设计的关注,并让他们参与审判规程的开发,文档编制和研究程序。在试验期间需要确认和回应的领域包括提供支持以解决知情同意和资格问题,了解“等待”分配对参与者(n = 145),工作人员和志愿者的影响以及将志愿者管理和反馈纳入试验程序。结论:与非临床现场工作人员和志愿者合作进行严格且符合道德的候补名单试验是可能的。关键考虑因素包括评估等待时间和数据收集时间,了解在试用中提供服务的情况以及与支持人员进行清晰的响应式沟通

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号