Evaluation of research co-design in health: a systematic overview of reviews and development of a framework

Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Systematic reviews and research waste. Lancet. 2016;387(10014):122–3.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86–9.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014;383(9913):267–76.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Ioannidis JP. Why Most Clinical Research Is Not Useful. PLoS Med. 2016;13(6):e1002049.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Oliver S. Patient involvement in setting research agendas. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;18(9):935–8.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Slattery P, Saeri AK, Bragge P. Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):17.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Ní Shé É, Harrison R. Mitigating unintended consequences of co-design in health care. Health Expect. 2021;24(5):1551–6.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Peters S, Sukumar K, Blanchard S, Ramasamy A, Malinowski J, Ginex P, et al. Trends in guideline implementation: an updated scoping review. Implement Sci. 2022;17:50.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, Craig P, Baird J, Blazeby JM, et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2021;374:n2061.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ. 2017;358:j3453.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, Wang Z, Nabhan M, Shippee N, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:89.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Manafo E, Petermann L, Mason-Lai P, Vandall-Walker V. Patient engagement in Canada: a scoping review of the “how” and “what” of patient engagement in health research. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):5.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Fergusson D, Monfaredi Z, Pussegoda K, Garritty C, Lyddiatt A, Shea B, et al. The prevalence of patient engagement in published trials: a systematic review. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4:17.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Vat LE, Finlay T, Jan Schuitmaker-Warnaar T, Fahy N, Robinson P, Boudes M, et al. Evaluating the “return on patient engagement initiatives” in medicines research and development: A literature review. Health Expect. 2020;23(1):5–18.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Luger TM, Hamilton AB, True G. Measuring Community-Engaged Research Contexts, Processes, and Outcomes: A Mapping Review. Milbank Q. 2020;98(2):493–553.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Modigh A, Sampaio F, Moberg L, Fredriksson M. The impact of patient and public involvement in health research versus healthcare: A scoping review of reviews. Health Policy. 2021;125(9):1208–21.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Clavel N, Paquette J, Dumez V, Del Grande C, Ghadiri DPS, Pomey MP, et al. Patient engagement in care: A scoping review of recently validated tools assessing patients’ and healthcare professionals’ preferences and experience. Health Expect. 2021;24(6):1924–35.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Newman B, Joseph K, Chauhan A, Seale H, Li J, Manias E, et al. Do patient engagement interventions work for all patients? A systematic review and realist synthesis of interventions to enhance patient safety. Health Expect. 2021;24:1905 No Pagination Specified.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Lowe D, Ryan R, Schonfeld L, Merner B, Walsh L, Graham-Wisener L, et al. Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;9:CD013373.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Price A, Albarqouni L, Kirkpatrick J, Clarke M, Liew SM, Roberts N, et al. Patient and public involvement in the design of clinical trials: An overview of systematic reviews. J Eval Clin Pract. 2018;24(1):240–53.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Sarrami-Foroushani P, Travaglia J, Debono D, Braithwaite J. Implementing strategies in consumer and community engagement in health care: results of a large-scale, scoping meta-review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:402.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Abrams R, Park S, Wong G, Rastogi J, Boylan A-M, Tierney S, et al. Lost in reviews: Looking for the involvement of stakeholders, patients, public and other non-researcher contributors in realist reviews. Research Synthesis Methods. 2021;12(2):239–47.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Zych MM, Berta WB, Gagliardi AR. Conceptualising the initiation of researcher and research user partnerships: a meta-narrative review. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):24.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Gates M, Gates A, Pieper D, Fernandes RM, Tricco AC, Moher D, et al. Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement. BMJ. 2022;378:e070849.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Pollock A, Campbell P, Brunton G, Hunt H, Estcourt L. Selecting and implementing overview methods: implications from five exemplar overviews. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):145.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Greenhalgh T, Hinton L, Finlay T, Macfarlane A, Fahy N, Clyde B, et al. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co-design pilot. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care & Health Policy. 2019;22(4):785–801.

Article  Google Scholar 

Hughes M, Duffy C. Public involvement in health and social sciences research: A concept analysis. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care & Health Policy. 2018;21(6):1183–90.

Article  Google Scholar 

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2008;3(2):77–101.

Article  Google Scholar 

Waggoner J, Carline JD, Durning SJ. Is There a Consensus on Consensus Methodology? Descriptions and Recommendations for Future Consensus Research. Acad Med. 2016;91(5):663–8.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Harvey N, Holmes CA. Nominal group technique: an effective method for obtaining group consensus. Int J Nurs Pract. 2012;18(2):188–94.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Baldwin JN, Napier S, Neville S, Clair VAWS. Impacts of older people’s patient and public involvement in health and social care research: a systematic review. Age Ageing. 2018;47(6):801–9.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Bench S, Eassom E, Poursanidou K. The nature and extent of service user involvement in critical care research and quality improvement: A scoping review of the literature. Int J Consum Stud. 2018;42(2):217–31.

Article  Google Scholar 

Bethell J, Commisso E, Rostad HM, Puts M, Babineau J, Grinbergs-Saull A, et al. Pa

留言 (0)

沒有登入
gif