Patient involvement in a qualitative meta-synthesis: Lessons learnt

被引：10

作者：

Bayliss K. ^{[1
]}

Starling B. ^{[1
]}

Raza K. ^{[2
]}

Johansson E.C. ^{[3
]}

Zabalan C. ^{[3
]}

Moore S. ^{[4
]}

Skingle D. ^{[3
]}

Jasinski T. ^{[3
]}

Thomas S. ^{[3
]}

Stack R. ^{[2
,5
]}

机构：

[1] Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester

[2] Centre for Translational Inflammation Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham

[3] EuroTEAM Patient Research, Birmingham

[4] Rheumatoid Arthritis service user group, University of Manchester, Manchester

[5] Division of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham

来源：

Research Involvement and Engagement | / 2卷 / 1期

关键词：

Co-production; Co-researcher; Evaluation; Meta-synthesis; Patient and public involvement; Qualitative research; Review;

D O I：

10.1186/s40900-016-0032-0

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Background Patient involvement in systematic reviews is seen as good practice, yet there is a lack of accessible standardised training for those involved. The aim of this paper is to inform the evidence base on effective ways of involving patients in a qualitative meta-synthesis. This process is evaluated and reflected by patient research partners (PRPs) who provided accounts of their experience. Methods An open ended questionnaire was emailed to eight PRPs who had participated in the analysis of a qualitative meta-synthesis. Questions focussed on the training they received, their experience of coding data and identifying themes, whether they enjoyed taking part in the project and how the process could be improved. Results Our findings point to the importance of detailed training for PRPs, using plain English and clear examples of analysis techniques to improve confidence in engaging with meta-synthesis methods. Face to face training was preferred in order to discuss a PRP’s understanding of the task ahead. Time is an important consideration as PRPs often complete this work on top of their daily commitments and need the time and on-going support to be able to immerse themselves in the data. A focus group was a useful way to discuss the themes but it is important that PRPs understand how their comments have influenced the paper. PRPs reported benefits that included building new skills, improving confidence and gaining knowledge. They also asked for feedback on their contribution and any further training needs. All PRPs said they would take part in a meta-synthesis in the future as long as these considerations were addressed. Conclusion The recommendations for practice identified in this paper, and guidelines for training, can assist researchers in collaborating with PRPs when developing and conducting a qualitative meta-synthesis. © 2016 Bayliss et al.

引用

共 28 条

[1] Rose D., Patient and public involvement in health research: Ethical imperative and/or radical challenge?, J Health Psychol, 19, pp. 149-158, (2014)
[2] Developing Training and Support for Public Involvement in Research. Eastleigh: INVOLVE, (2012)
[3] Involving the Public in Systematic Reviews: What Does the Evidence Tell Us? Conference, (2012)
[4] Snape D., Kirkham J., Preston J., Popay J., Birtten N., Collins M., Et al., Exploring areas of consensus and conflict around values underpinning public involvement in health and social care research: A modified Delphi study, BMJ Open, 4, (2014)
[5] Stewart R., Liabo K., Involvement in research without compromising research quality, J Health Serv Res Policy, 17, pp. 248-251, (2012)
[6] Staley K., Exploring Impact: Public Involvement in NHS, Public Health and Social Care Research. Eastleigh: INVOLVE, (2009)
[7] Boote J., Baird W., Beecroft C., Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: A narrative review of case examples, Health Policy, 95, pp. 10-23, (2010)
[8] Rees R., Oliver K., Woodman J., Thomas J., The views of young children in the UK about obesity, body size, shape and weight: A systematic review, BMC Public Health, 11, (2011)
[9] Boote J., Baird W., Sutton A., Public involvement in the systematic review process in health and social care: A narrative review of case examples, Health Policy, 102, pp. 105-116, (2011)
[10] Liabo K., Grey K., Mulcahy D., A systematic review of interventions to support looked-after children in school, Child Fam Soc Work, 18, pp. 341-353, (2013)

← 1 2 3 →