Regarding clinical research, the participation of people treated patients-ends, generally at the time the study is submitted to a journal. Some publishers based on U.K. now looking to change that. Last month, BioMed Central, an open access publisher, announced that in 2015 it will launch the journal Involvement of research and commitment , who work closely with patients in all aspects of its drafting process, including peer review.
Reflecting this unorthodox approach, the newspaper will Editors Joint Chief Sophie Staniszewska the University of Warwick, who directs the patient research program and public participation at the Royal College of research Institute of nursing, joining force with Richard Stephens, who became a well known defender of patients in the UK, after surviving two cancers and other serious diseases. The newspaper also plans to have peer connections, each section being typically reviewed by at least one university and one patient. "We wanted to send a signal to the community that the active cooperation [between academics and patients] is an essential part of high-quality research," says Staniszewska. Stephens adds: "More and more of us [patients] are increasingly involved in university research in health."
The new journal aims to capture the contributions of non-thinkers in scientific research; according to Stephens, the academic assessment of public participation and patients in science has been conducted for many years, but no newspaper was devoted to the theme, commonly known as PPI. Donors of the new point of the magazine to a document 2010 Health Expectations as the type of work they hope to publish. The study proposed guidelines for assessing the quality and impact of user participation in the published documents and grant applications. The guidelines represent a collaboration between patients and academics-many authors were patients. But according to Daniel Shanahan, associate editor for medical evidence to BioMed Central London study would have benefited from a review by the patient peers. "In the case of this article, a secular critique would have been able to provide valuable insight as to the quality and potential impact of user participation, which would help to improve the overall quality of the article" He suggests.
But patients will be able to review scientific documents that require technical knowledge? "We will select reviewers patients watching a particular document based on their area of expertise, which often connects [medical] experiences they have had," says Staniszewska. After a certain medical condition makes patients "lay experts" for this condition, and the magazine aims to take advantage of that, she said. To help Biomed Central and others to evaluate the success of the new approach, the journal aims to make all the comments of articles accepted freely available online. "We believe that we add value, but are still grappling to capture the way we add value and how you can apply what we have done in a particular instance in another example," says Stephens. "This process of open peer review allows us to judge the way we do ... so it allows us to judge the research itself. "
Involvement of research and commitment is not the only journal that is peer review Embedding patient in its drafting process. The BMJ began to incorporate the views of patients and last year issued guidelines for peer reviewers of patients on their website. " The BMJ believes that the peer review of the research papers of patients is an important complement to the normal process of peer review, in which the documents are sent to clinical experts and statisticians" said Tessa Richards, who is the editor patient partnership the BMJ in London. "We are not looking for them to comment on the scientific reliability of paper or originality or importance for clinicians, but to tell us whether the research question concerns an issue that is important to them as patients. "
Stephens says the new Biomed Central newspaper will have a similar approach , allowing researchers to comment on the "robustness" of methods, statistics or data, and patients to focus on applications, providing feedback if work can be useful in other global initiatives such . Examiners patients will however be allowed to comment also on the data, methods or statistics if they have the technical knowledge to do so.
Stephens stressed that "academics" and "patients" often overlap. Many clinical researchers have their own medical problems, obviously, and patients often have jobs that require technical skills such as statistics that would be useful in examining the documents. "There is a growing number of patients who are co-creation of university research papers, essays and co-design engineering and assembling management teams of the trial," said Stephens. "So there basic skills that develops in patients throughout the world, and certainly in the UK "Stephens added that some patients already considering applications for clinical trials and even help in the development of academic papers, to create a simplified summary of them.
Do examiners patients of the magazine to be selected because of their experience with a disease or skills they have, as the statistical knowledge? "at currently, we are recruiting the lay reviewers who are already involved in, or interested in research. This is usually done either by direct referral of members of the editorial board or by patient organizations and charities " Shanahan said. "We also have to consider the training in place for reviewers lay in the future, so they will have a thorough understanding of the issues to consider when evaluating the articles." The newspaper is also to create a form template to help people who do not know the peer verification -process.
Stephens is excited by the potential of the new journal. "I actually think this approach will encourage patients," he said. "All we're doing with the magazine is a logical extension of patient choice agenda the idea of the United Kingdom that there was no decision about us without us".
* editor's Note: the author worked in BioMed Central from September 2012 until June 2014, but had no participation in peer reviews the patient or the new journal.
0 Komentar