Developing a checklist for reporting research using simulated patient methodology (CRiSP): a consensus study

Author(s):  
Suvini Amaratunge ◽  
Morgan Harrison ◽  
Rhonda Clifford ◽  
Liza Seubert ◽  
Amy Page ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives Simulated patients are increasingly used to measure outcomes in health services but reporting is suboptimal. This study aims to create a checklist for the reporting of simulated patient (SP) methodology. Methods This was a Delphi study. The authors of health service research studies using SP methodology were invited to participate. Round 1 questionnaire assessed the applicability of the TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) reporting checklist for SP methodology and asked for rewording of/additional items. Responses were thematically analysed to generate Round 2 items in which participants rated each item for importance (seven-point Likert scale) and median, mode and IQR were calculated. In Round 3, participants were invited to rescore their Round 2 responses. Consensus was defined as an IQR ≤ 1 (Extremely important) and median ≤ 2 (Very important). All consensus items were considered for inclusion in the checklist. Similarly, worded items were rationalised and items not specific to SP methodology or other existing checklists were excluded. Key findings Twenty-nine authors participated in Round 1 and a further seven for Rounds 2 and 3. Twenty-six responses were analysed for Round 1, 30 for Round 2 and 28 for Round 3. There was consensus on 29 of 54 items in Round 2 and 45 of 63 items in Round 3. The final checklist comprised 28 items. Conclusions A new reporting checklist to guide the reporting of studies, using simulated patients, complementary to CONSORT or STROBE, has been developed and will now be tested for usability.

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Jorm ◽  
Rick Iedema ◽  
Donella Piper ◽  
Nicholas Goodwin ◽  
Andrew Searles

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to argue for an improved conceptualisation of health service research, using Stengers' (2018) metaphor of “slow science” as a critical yardstick.Design/methodology/approachThe paper is structured in three parts. It first reviews the field of health services research and the approaches that dominate it. It then considers the healthcare research approaches whose principles and methodologies are more aligned with “slow science” before presenting a description of a “slow science” project in which the authors are currently engaged.FindingsCurrent approaches to health service research struggle to offer adequate resources for resolving frontline complexity, principally because they set more store by knowledge generalisation, disciplinary continuity and integrity and the consolidation of expertise, than by engaging with frontline complexity on its terms, negotiating issues with frontline staff and patients on their terms and framing findings and solutions in ways that key in to the in situ dynamics and complexities that define health service delivery.Originality/valueThere is a need to engage in a paradigm shift that engages health services as co-researchers, prioritising practical change and local involvement over knowledge production. Economics is a research field where the products are of natural appeal to powerful health service managers. A “slow science” approach adopted by the embedded Economist Program with its emphasis on pre-implementation, knowledge mobilisation and parallel site capacity development sets out how research can be flexibly produced to improve health services.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e045123
Author(s):  
Jacinta Nzinga ◽  
Caroline Jones ◽  
David Gathara ◽  
Mike English

ObjectiveEmbedding researchers within health systems results in more socially relevant research and more effective uptake of evidence into policy and practice. However, the practice of embedded health service research remains poorly understood. We explored and assessed the development of embedded participatory approaches to health service research by a health research team in Kenya highlighting the different ways multiple stakeholders were engaged in a neonatal research study.MethodsWe conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with key stakeholders. Data were analysed thematically using both inductive and deductive approaches.SettingOver recent years, the Health Services Unit within the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI)-Wellcome Trust Research Programme in Nairobi Kenya, has been working closely with organisations and technical stakeholders including, but not limited to, medical and nursing schools, frontline health workers, senior paediatricians, policymakers and county officials, in developing and conducting embedded health research. This involves researchers embedding themselves in the contexts in which they carry out their research (mainly in county hospitals, local universities and other training institutions), creating and sustaining social networks. Researchers collaboratively worked with stakeholders to identify clinical, operational and behavioural issues related to routine service delivery, formulating and exploring research questions to bring change in practiceParticipantsWe purposively selected 14 relevant stakeholders spanning policy, training institutions, healthcare workers, regulatory councils and professional associations.ResultsThe value of embeddedness is highlighted through the description of a recently completed project, Health Services that Deliver for Newborns (HSD-N). We describe how the HSD-N research process contributed to and further strengthened a collaborative research platform and illustrating this project’s role in identifying and generating ideas about how to tackle health service delivery problemsConclusionsWe conclude with a discussion about the experiences, challenges and lessons learned regarding engaging stakeholders in the coproduction of research.


2015 ◽  
Vol 262 (2) ◽  
pp. 338-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maik Sahm ◽  
Matthias Pross ◽  
Ronny Otto ◽  
Andreas Koch ◽  
Ingo Gastinger ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document