Paediatric eye and vision research participation experiences: a systematic review

Author:

Miller JacquelineORCID,Curtis-Tyler Katherine,Maden Michelle,Dahlmann-Noor Annegret,Chudleigh Jane

Abstract

Abstract Background For children and young people with eye and vision conditions, research is essential to advancing evidence-based recommendations in diagnosis, prevention, treatments and cures. Patient ‘experience’ reflects a key measure of quality in health care (Department of Health. High Quality Care for All: NHS Next Stage Review Final Report: The Stationery Office (2008)); research participant ‘experiences’ are equally important. Therefore, in order to achieve child-centred, high-quality paediatric ophthalmic research, we need to understand participation experiences. We conducted a systematic review of existing literature; our primary outcome was to understand what children and young people, parents and research staff perceive to support or hinder positive paediatric eye and vision research experiences. Our secondary outcomes explored whether any adverse or positive effects were perceived to be related to participation experiences, and if any interventions to improve paediatric ophthalmic research experiences had previously been developed or used. Methods We searched (from inception to November 2018, updated July 2020) in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, NICE evidence and The Cochrane Library (CDSR and CENTRAL), key journals (by hand), grey literature databases and Google Scholar; looking for evidence from the perspectives of children, young people, parents and staff with experience of paediatric ophthalmic research. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Participant in Research Experience Survey (PRES) (National Institute for Health Research. Research Participant Experience Survey Report 2018–19 (2019); National Institute for Health Research. Optimising the Participant in Research Experience Checklist (2019)) identified ‘five domains’ pivotal to shaping positive research experiences; we used these domains as an ‘a priori’ framework to conduct a ‘best fit’ synthesis (Carroll et al., BMC Med Res Methodol. 11:29, 2011; Carroll et al., BMC Med Res Methodol. 13:37, 2013). Results Our search yielded 13,020 papers; two studies were eligible. These evaluated research experiences from the perspectives of parents and staff; the perspectives of children and young people themselves were not collected. No studies were identified addressing our secondary objectives. Synthesis confirmed the experiences of parents were shaped by staff characteristics, information provision, trial organisation and personal motivations, concurring with the ‘PRES domains’ (National Institute for Health Research. Optimising the Participant in Research Experience Checklist (2019)) and generating additional dimensions to participation motivations and the physical and emotional costs of study organisation. Conclusions The evidence base is limited and importantly omits the voices of children and young people. Further research, involving children and young people, is necessary to better understand the research experiences of this population, and so inform quality improvements for paediatric ophthalmic research care and outcomes. Trial registration Review registered with PROSPERO, International prospective register of systematic reviews: CRD42018117984. Registered on 11 December 2018.

Funder

National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Pharmacology (medical),Medicine (miscellaneous)

Reference44 articles.

1. Department of Health and Social Care. Saving and improving lives: the future of UK clinical research delivery. 2021. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-future-of-uk-clinical-research-delivery/saving-and-improving-lives-the-future-of-uk-clinical-research-delivery.

2. Staphorst M. Hearing the Voices of the Children: the views of children participating in clinical research. Erasmus Univeristy Rotterdam; 2017. Available from: https://repub.eur.nl/pub/100170/.

3. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Children and clinical research: ethical issues London. 2015. Available from: http://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/Children-and-clinical-research-full-report.pdf.

4. Caldwell P, Murphy S, Butow P, Craig J. Clinical trials in children. Lancet. 2004;364(9436):803–11.

5. Carter B, Bray L, Dickinson A, Edwards M, Ford K. Child-centred nursing: promoting critical thinking. Sage; 2014. Available from: http://0-sk.sagepub.com.wam.city.ac.uk/books/child-centred-nursing-promoting-critical-thinking.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3