Christopher McKevitt1, Nina Fudge1, Siobhan Crichton1, Yannick Bejot2, Benoît Daubail2, Antonio Di Carlo3, Patricia Fearon4, Peter Kolominsky-Rabas5, Anita Sheldenkar1, Sophie Newbound6, Charles D A Wolfe1. 1. Division of Health and Social Care Research, King's College London, London, UK. 2. Dijon Stroke Registry, University Hospital and Medical School of Dijon, University of Burgundy, Dijon, France. 3. University of Florence & Institute of Neuroscience, National Research Council of Italy, Sesto Fiorentino (FI), Italy. 4. Academic Section of Geriatric Medicine, Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK. 5. Interdisciplinary Centre for Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Public Health, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany. 6. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Guy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London, Guy's Hospital, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lay involvement in implementation of research evidence into practice may include using research findings to guide individual care, as well as involvement in research processes and policy development. Little is known about the conditions required for such involvement. AIM: To assess stroke survivors' research awareness, use of research evidence in their own care and readiness to be involved in research processes. METHODS: Cross sectional survey of stroke survivors participating in population-based stroke registers in six European centres. RESULTS: The response rate was 74% (481/647). Reasons for participation in register research included responding to clinician request (56%) and to 'give something back' (19%); however, 20% were unaware that they were participating in a stroke register. Research awareness was generally low: 57% did not know the purpose of the register they had been recruited to; 73% reported not having received results from the register they took part in; 60% did not know about any research on stroke care. Few participants (7.6%) used research evidence during their consultations with a doctor. The 34% of participants who were interested in being involved in research were younger, more highly educated and already research aware. CONCLUSIONS: Across Europe, stroke survivors already participating in research appear ill informed about stroke research. Researchers, healthcare professionals and patient associations need to improve how research results are communicated to patient populations and research participants, and to raise awareness of the relationship between research evidence and increased quality of care.
BACKGROUND: Lay involvement in implementation of research evidence into practice may include using research findings to guide individual care, as well as involvement in research processes and policy development. Little is known about the conditions required for such involvement. AIM: To assess stroke survivors' research awareness, use of research evidence in their own care and readiness to be involved in research processes. METHODS: Cross sectional survey of stroke survivors participating in population-based stroke registers in six European centres. RESULTS: The response rate was 74% (481/647). Reasons for participation in register research included responding to clinician request (56%) and to 'give something back' (19%); however, 20% were unaware that they were participating in a stroke register. Research awareness was generally low: 57% did not know the purpose of the register they had been recruited to; 73% reported not having received results from the register they took part in; 60% did not know about any research on stroke care. Few participants (7.6%) used research evidence during their consultations with a doctor. The 34% of participants who were interested in being involved in research were younger, more highly educated and already research aware. CONCLUSIONS: Across Europe, stroke survivors already participating in research appear ill informed about stroke research. Researchers, healthcare professionals and patient associations need to improve how research results are communicated to patient populations and research participants, and to raise awareness of the relationship between research evidence and increased quality of care.
Authors: Maarten Uyttenboogaart; Roy E Stewart; Patrick C A J Vroomen; Jacques De Keyser; Gert-Jan Luijckx Journal: Stroke Date: 2005-08-04 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Peter Langhorne; Gillian Taylor; Gordon Murray; Martin Dennis; Craig Anderson; Erik Bautz-Holter; Paola Dey; Bent Indredavik; Nancy Mayo; Michael Power; Helen Rodgers; Ole Morten Ronning; Anthony Rudd; Nijasri Suwanwela; Lotta Widen-Holmqvist; Charles Wolfe Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Feb 5-11 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Allan Best; Trisha Greenhalgh; Steven Lewis; Jessie E Saul; Simon Carroll; Jennifer Bitz Journal: Milbank Q Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 4.911
Authors: Peter Sandercock; Joanna M Wardlaw; Richard I Lindley; Martin Dennis; Geoff Cohen; Gordon Murray; Karen Innes; Graham Venables; Anna Czlonkowska; Adam Kobayashi; Stefano Ricci; Veronica Murray; Eivind Berge; Karsten Bruins Slot; Graeme J Hankey; Manuel Correia; Andre Peeters; Karl Matz; Phillippe Lyrer; Gord Gubitz; Stephen J Phillips; Antonio Arauz Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-05-23 Impact factor: 79.321