Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Patient partners' perspectives of meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews: A patient-oriented rapid review.
Boden, Catherine; Edmonds, Anne Marie; Porter, Tom; Bath, Brenna; Dunn, Kate; Gerrard, Angie; Goodridge, Donna; Stobart, Christine.
  • Boden C; University Library, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
  • Edmonds AM; Patient Partner, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
  • Porter T; Patient Partner, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
  • Bath B; School of Rehabilitations Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
  • Dunn K; Saskatchewan Centre for Patient-Oriented Research, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
  • Gerrard A; University Library, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
  • Goodridge D; College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
  • Stobart C; Saskatchewan Centre for Patient-Oriented Research, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Health Expect ; 24(4): 1056-1071, 2021 08.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34048618
BACKGROUND: A growing literature describes promising practices for patient-oriented research (POR) generally; however, those for systematic reviews are largely derived through the lens of a researcher. This rapid review sought to understand meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews from the patient partner (PP) perspective. DESIGN: The review team comprised PPs, librarians, SCPOR staff and academic faculty. We searched OVID MEDLINE and EMBASE, ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health, and core POR websites. Documents describing PP reflections on their involvement in synthesis reviews were included. Screening and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. Thematic analysis was employed to identify themes in the data regarding PP perceptions of engagement in synthesis reviews. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 1386 citations. Eight journal articles and one blog post were included. Seven studies focused on conducting systematic reviews on a particular health or patient-related topic to which PP involvement was an important part and two studies focused specifically on the experience of including PP in synthesis reviews. PPs engaged in the review process through a variety of mechanisms, levels and stages of the review process. Three major themes emerged from the data: (1) foster partnerships through team development, (2) provide opportunities for outcomes valued by PP and (3) strengthen the research endeavour. CONCLUSION: Fostering partnerships through team development is foundational for meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews. It requires sensitively balancing of various needs (eg overburdening with contributions). Meaningful involvement in reviews has both personal and research benefits. PATIENT INVOLVEMENT: Patient partners were equal collaborators in all aspects of the review.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Participación del Paciente / Investigadores Tipo de estudio: Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Participación del Paciente / Investigadores Tipo de estudio: Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article