4.2 Article

A Research Information Sheet for Practices (RISP): a tool to facilitate research participation

期刊

FAMILY PRACTICE
卷 19, 期 6, 页码 691-697

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/fampra/19.6.691

关键词

clinical protocols; family practice; patient selection; research design; Research Information Sheet for Practices

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Practice teams may receive many requests to become involved in research studies. The information they receive may not necessarily provide the information they need to make a quick and informed decision about participation. Facilitating good decisions about research involvement has potential value for researchers, practitioners and research/development managers. Objective. To develop and pilot a template (RISP) for communicating information about research studies to practice teams. Methods. A participatory approach was used to develop the template involving primary care practitioners, researchers and research/development managers. The process of developing and piloting the template was recorded using an action research approach. Data were derived from documentation about policy, notes from participant observation and evaluation questionnaires. Results. The RISP template was used as a source of reference about practical implications of research and as a means to communicate information about research studies to practice teams. Practice respondents valued its use in enabling members of the practice team to quickly assimilate information about the proposed research study and in providing the basis for a well-informed decision about participation. Its value to record keeping (and to research governance) was anticipated at the planning stage but was not as yet strongly evident in responses from practice. Conclusion. The RISP template has been designed to reflect the concerns of researchers, primary care practitioners and research/development managers. It can contribute to the documentation required in support of research governance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据