首页> 外文OA文献 >Exploring areas of consensus and conflict around values underpinning public involvement in health and social care research: A modified Delphi study
【2h】

Exploring areas of consensus and conflict around values underpinning public involvement in health and social care research: A modified Delphi study

机译:探索围绕价值观的共识和冲突领域,这些价值观支持公众参与卫生和社会护理研究:改进的德尔菲研究

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

Objective There is growing interest in the potential benefits of public involvement (PI) in health and social care research. However, there has been little examination of values underpinning PI or how these values might differ for different groups with an interest in PI in the research process. We aimed to explore areas of consensus and conflict around normative, substantive and process-related values underpinning PI.udududDesign Mixed method, three-phase, modified Delphi study, conducted as part of a larger multiphase project.udududSetting The UK health and social care research community.udududParticipants Stakeholders in PI in research, defined as: clinical and non-clinical academics, members of the public, research managers, commissioners and funders; identified via research networks, online searches and a literature review.udududResults We identified high levels of consensus for many normative, substantive and process-related issues. However, there were also areas of conflict in relation to issues of bias and representativeness, and around whether the purpose of PI in health and social care research is to bring about service change or generate new knowledge. There were large differences by group in the percentages endorsing the ethical justification for PI and the argument that PI equalises power imbalances. With regard to practical implementation of PI, research support infrastructures were reported as lacking. Participants reported shortcomings in the uptake and practice of PI. Embedding PI practice and evaluation in research study designs was seen as fundamental to strengthening the evidence base.udududConclusions Our findings highlight the extent to which PI is already embedded in research. However, they also highlight a need for ‘best practice’ standards to assist research teams to understand, implement and evaluate PI. These findings have been used in developing a Public Involvement Impact Assessment Framework (PiiAF), which offers guidance to researchers and members of the public involved in the PI process.
机译:目的人们越来越关注公众参与健康和社会护理研究的潜在利益。但是,几乎没有研究过支持PI的价值观,或者对于研究过程中对PI感兴趣的不同群体,这些价值观可能有何不同。 ud ud udDesign混合方法,三相,改进的Delphi研究,作为一个较大的多阶段项目的一部分,进行了研究。我们旨在探索围绕PI的规范性,实质性和过程相关值的共识和冲突领域。 ud udSetting英国卫生和社会护理研究社区。 ud ud ud参与者PI的研究利益相关者,定义为:临床和非临床学者,公众成员,研究经理,委员和资助人;通过研究网络,在线搜索和文献综述确定。 ud ud ud结果我们对许多规范性,实质性和过程相关的问题达成了高度共识。但是,在偏见和代表性问题以及PI在健康和社会护理研究中的目的是带来服务变化还是产生新知识方面,也存在一些冲突领域。在支持PI的道德依据的百分比和PI平衡权力不平衡这一论点上,各组之间存在很大差异。关于PI的实际实施,据报告缺乏研究支持基础设施。参与者报告了PI的采用和实践存在缺陷。在研究研究设计中嵌入PI实践和评估被认为是加强证据基础的基础。 ud ud ud结论我们的发现强调了PI已被嵌入研究的程度。但是,它们也强调了“最佳实践”标准的必要性,以帮助研究团队理解,实施和评估PI。这些发现已用于开发公共参与影响评估框架(PiiAF),该框架为参与PI流程的研究人员和公众提供指导。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
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