Literature DB >> 12787185

Seeking evidence from medical research consumers as part of the medical research process could improve the uptake of research evidence.

Margaret T Whitstock1.   

Abstract

Concerns have been expressed about gaps between available medical research evidence and current medical practice. These gaps have been attributed to process problems with the implementation of evidence previously judged to be appropriate, rather than to problems with the appropriateness of the evidence provided for implementation. Two such 'appropriateness' problems are the applicability of research evidence to an individual patient, and the acceptability to an individual patient of a proposed treatment. Part of both these problems is due to the pre-eminence of the scientific paradigm within the medical research domain, and of the randomized controlled clinical trial within that domain. However, there is an opportunity beneficially to address both these problems by supporting reciprocal communication between medical research 'producers' and medical research 'consumers'--both practising clinicians and patients' representatives--in the setting of research priorities, selection of topics for research, development of research questions and study designs, in-progress reviewing, and final reporting of medical research projects. Such communication could allow researchers to understand, and respond to, clinicians' and patients' inputs concerning the applicability, utility and acceptability issues that will ultimately affect whether, and how, medical research findings can be applied. Such communication could also assist with some post-research implementation issues: integration of appropriate evidence into everyday practice; access to appropriate information sources; and a critical lack of necessary time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12787185     DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2003.00376.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract        ISSN: 1356-1294            Impact factor:   2.431


  13 in total

1.  Clinical utility of predictors of return-to-work outcome following work-related musculoskeletal injury.

Authors:  Heidi Muenchberger; Elizabeth Kendall; Peter Grimbeek; Travis Gee
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2007-11-30

2.  Can the impact of public involvement on research be evaluated? A mixed methods study.

Authors:  Rosemary Barber; Jonathan D Boote; Glenys D Parry; Cindy L Cooper; Philippa Yeeles; Sarah Cook
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2011-02-17       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 3.  The quality of guidelines in pediatric surgery: can we all AGREE?

Authors:  Anna C Shawyer; Michael H Livingston; Veena Manja; Melissa C Brouwers
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2014-10-22       Impact factor: 1.827

4.  Organizational management: what service providers are doing while researchers are disseminating interventions.

Authors:  Susan D Phillips; Charlene A Allred
Journal:  J Behav Health Serv Res       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 1.505

5.  Patient, Family, and Community Advisory Councils in Health Care and Research: a Systematic Review.

Authors:  Benjamin J Oldfield; Marcus A Harrison; Inginia Genao; Ann T Greene; Mary Ellen Pappas; Janis G Glover; Marjorie S Rosenthal
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-07-26       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 6.  Methods of consumer involvement in developing healthcare policy and research, clinical practice guidelines and patient information material.

Authors:  E S Nilsen; H T Myrhaug; M Johansen; S Oliver; A D Oxman
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2006-07-19

7.  Collaboration and co-ownership in research: dynamics and dialogues between patient research partners and professional researchers in a research team.

Authors:  Christi J Nierse; Karen Schipper; Ezra van Zadelhoff; Joos van de Griendt; Tineke A Abma
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2011-02-17       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 8.  Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework.

Authors:  Nathan D Shippee; Juan Pablo Domecq Garces; Gabriela J Prutsky Lopez; Zhen Wang; Tarig A Elraiyah; Mohammed Nabhan; Juan P Brito; Kasey Boehmer; Rim Hasan; Belal Firwana; Patricia J Erwin; Victor M Montori; M Hassan Murad
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-06-03       Impact factor: 3.377

9.  Collaborating with consumer and community representatives in health and medical research in Australia: results from an evaluation.

Authors:  Janet M Payne; Heather A D'Antoine; Kathryn E France; Anne E McKenzie; Nadine Henley; Anne E Bartu; Elizabeth J Elliott; Carol Bower
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2011-05-14

10.  UK research funding bodies' views towards public participation in health-related research decisions: an exploratory study.

Authors:  Jennifer E van Bekkum; Shona Hilton
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-07-24       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.