The importance of methodology to palliative care research: A new article type for Palliative Medicine

1. Leahey, E, Lee, J, Funk, R. What types of novelty are most disruptive? Leiden, The Netherlands: Seminar Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), 2021. https://www.cwts.nl/seminars/announcements?article=n-s2u2c4&title=what-types-of-novelty-are-most-disruptive
Google Scholar | Crossref2. Saunders, C . The evolution of palliative care. J R Soc Med 2001; 94: 430–432.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI3. Ritchie, CL, Pollak, KI, Kehl, KA, et al. Better together: the making and maturation of the palliative care research cooperative group. J Palliat Med 2017; 20: 584–591.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline4. Hanson, LC, Winzelberg, G. Research priorities for geriatric palliative care: goals, values, and preferences. J Palliat Med 2013; 16: 1175–1179.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline5. Pereira, SM, Hernández-Marrero, P. Research ethics in palliative care: a hallmark in palliative medicine. Palliat Med 2019. Online January 28. DOI: 10.1177/0269216319827178
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals6. Bajwah, S, Oluyase, AO, Yi, D, et al. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hospital-based specialist palliative care for adults with advanced illness and their caregivers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 9(9): CD012780.
Google Scholar | Medline7. Moustgaard, H, Clayton, GL, Jones, HE, et al. Impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects in randomised clinical trials: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 2020; 368: l6802.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline8. Gysels, M, Evans, CJ, Lewis, P, et al. MORECare research methods guidance development: recommendations for ethical issues in palliative and end-of-life care research. Palliat Med 2013; 27(10): 908–917.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI9. Norton, WE, Loudon, K, Chambers, DA, et al. Designing provider-focused implementation trials with purpose and intent: introducing the PRECIS-2-PS tool. Implement Sci 2021; 16: 7–11.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline10. Fàbregues, S, Hong, QN, Escalante-Barrios, EL, et al. A methodological review of mixed methods research in palliative and end-of-life care (2014–2019). Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17: 3853.
Google Scholar | Crossref11. Jünger, S, Payne, SA, Brine, J, et al. Guidance on conducting and REporting DElphi studies (CREDES) in palliative care: recommendations based on a methodological systematic review. Palliat Med 2017; 31(8): 684–706.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI12. Hussain, J, White, I, Byrne, A, et al. Development of guidelines to reduce, handle and report missing data in palliative care trials: a multi-stakeholder modified nominal group technique. Palliat Med (2022).
Google Scholar13. Brett, J, Staniszewska, S, Simera, I, et al. Reaching consensus on reporting patient and public involvement (PPI) in research: methods and lessons learned from the development of reporting guidelines. BMJ Open 2017; 7: e016948.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline14. Johnson, H, Ogden, M, Brighton, LJ, et al. Patient and public involvement in palliative care research: what works, and why? A qualitative evaluation. Palliat Med 2021; 35(1): 151–160.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI15. Bloomer, MJ, Hutchinson, AM, Brooks, L, et al. Dying persons’ perspectives on, or experiences of, participating in research: an integrative review. Palliat Med 2018; 32(4): 851–860.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI16. Barclay, S, Moran, E, Boase, S, et al. Primary palliative care research: opportunities and challenges. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2019; 9: 468–472.
Google Scholar | Medline17. Clark, J, Gardiner, C, Barnes, A. International palliative care research in the context of global development: a systematic mapping review. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2018; 18: 7–18.
Google Scholar | Crossref18. Ewing, G, Rogers, M, Barclay, S, et al. Recruiting patients into a primary care based study of palliative care: why is it so difficult? Palliat Med 2004; 18(5): 452–459.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI19. Walton, N . Ethics in clinical investigation: from bench to bedside to round table. Clin Invest Med 2003; 26: 12.
Google Scholar | Medline20. Hernández-Marrrero, P, Martins Pereira, S, et al. Ethical challenges of informed consent, decision-making capacity and vulnerability in clinical dementia research. In: Koporc, Z (ed.) Research ethics and integrity in the life sciences. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, 2018, pp.147–168.
Google Scholar21. Morin, L, Onwuteaka-Philipsen, BD. The promise of big data for palliative and end-of-life care research. Palliat Med 2021; 35(9): 1638–1640.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI22. Thompson, J, Barber, R, Ward, PR, et al. Health researchers’ attitudes towards public involvement in health research. Health Expectations 2009; 12: 209–220.
Google Scholar | Medline | ISI23. Finucane, AM, Carduff, E, Lugton, J, et al. Palliative and end-of-life care research in Scotland 2006-2015: a systematic scoping review. BMC Palliat Care 2018; 17: 19.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline24. McIlfatrick, S, Muldrew, DHL, Hasson, F, et al. Examining palliative and end of life care research in Ireland within a global context: a systematic mapping review of the evidence. BMC Palliat Care 2018; 17: 109.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline

留言 (0)

沒有登入
gif