Literature DB >> 34364394

Using a 3 stage process to create a consumer research contact list in a paediatric health setting: the PARTICIPATE project.

Fenella J Gill1,2,3, Catherine Pienaar4, Tanya Jones5,6.   

Abstract

The impact of child health research can be far reaching; affecting children's immediate health, their adult health, the health of future generations and the economic wellbeing of countries. Consumer and community involvement is increasingly recognised as key to successful research recruitment. Systematic approaches to research recruitment include research registries or research contact lists.
OBJECTIVE: Develop a process of creating a consumer research contact list for participating in future research opportunities at a children's health service.
METHODS: A healthcare improvement approach using a 3 stage framework; 1) evidence review and consultation 2) co-production of a research communications plan with stakeholders (including consumers), including a draft research information brochure 3) prototyping involved iteratively testing the brochure, surveying parents or carers who attended outpatient clinics or the hospital Emergency Department, and conducting follow up telephone calls.
RESULTS: There was overall support for the creation of a research contact list, but some unknowns remain. 367 parents or carers completed the survey and 36 participated in a follow up telephone call. Over half would be willing to join a research contact list and more than 90% of the children of parents or carers surveyed were not currently participating in research. Several potential barriers identified by health service staff were dispelled. Research communications and a future contact list should be available in electronic form.
CONCLUSIONS: There was strong support for creating a research contact list. The approach will inform our future directions including creation of an electronic research contact list easily accessible by consumers of the children's health service. Recruiting enough children to participate in research studies can be challenging. Establishing a registry or list of young people willing to be contacted to participate in research is one way of addressing this problem. At our children's health service, we wanted to explore the idea of developing a research contact list and we were particularly keen to involve consumers and community members in this process, which involved: 1.Reviewing other examples of research contact lists and consulting with a range of people, including consumers and community members, 2. Co-producing a research communications plan with parents, young people, health service staff and research staff, including a draft research information brochure for families, and 3. Testing the acceptability of the brochure by surveying parents or carers who attended outpatient clinics or the hospital Emergency Department, and conducting follow up telephone calls with them. 367 parents or carers completed a survey and 36 participated in a follow up telephone call. Over half were willing to join a research contact list and more than 90% of the children of parents or carers surveyed were not currently participating in research. Several potential barriers raised by consumers and health professionals in the first stage of the project were not found to be a concern for the parents or carers surveyed. Responses showed research communications and a future contact list should be available in electronic form. These findings will inform the future creation of an electronic research contact list, easily accessible by consumers of the children's health service.
© 2021. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Child health research, parents, research participation; Consumer and community involvement; Paediatric; Stakeholder

Year:  2021        PMID: 34364394     DOI: 10.1186/s40900-021-00300-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Res Involv Engagem        ISSN: 2056-7529


  8 in total

1.  The ethical community consultation model as preparation for nursing research: a case study.

Authors:  Wyona M Freysteinson
Journal:  Nurs Ethics       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 2.874

Review 2.  A review of the impact of utilising electronic medical records for clinical research recruitment.

Authors:  Yan See Lai; Janyne Dawn Afseth
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2019-02-15       Impact factor: 2.486

Review 3.  Research using clinical registries in children's surgical care.

Authors:  Ferdynand Hebal; Yue-Yung Hu; Mehul V Raval
Journal:  Semin Pediatr Surg       Date:  2018-10-25       Impact factor: 2.754

Review 4.  Patient involvement in clinical research: why, when, and how.

Authors:  José A Sacristán; Alfonso Aguarón; Cristina Avendaño-Solá; Pilar Garrido; Juan Carrión; Alipio Gutiérrez; Robert Kroes; Angeles Flores
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 2.711

5.  Developing a UK registry to investigate the role of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in patients who activate the primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) pathway: a multicentre, feasibility study linking routinely collected electronic patient data.

Authors:  Rachel C Brierley; Maria Pufulete; Jessica Harris; Chiara Bucciarelli-Ducci; John P Greenwood; Stephen Dorman; Richard Anderson; Chris A Rogers; Barnaby C Reeves
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making: A systematic review of evaluation tools.

Authors:  Antoine Boivin; Audrey L'Espérance; François-Pierre Gauvin; Vincent Dumez; Ann C Macaulay; Pascale Lehoux; Julia Abelson
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2018-07-30       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  A healthy nation: strengthening child health research in the UK.

Authors:  Neena Modi; Howard Clark; Ingrid Wolfe; Anthony Costello; Helen Budge; R Goodier; M J Hyde; D Lumsden; A Prayle; D Roland
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2012-11-20       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process.

Authors:  Greg Ogrinc; Louise Davies; Daisy Goodman; Paul Batalden; Frank Davidoff; David Stevens
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2015-09-14       Impact factor: 7.035

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.