scholarly journals Strategies for involving patients and the public in scaling-up initiatives in health and social services: protocol for a scoping review and Delphi survey

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Ben Charif ◽  
◽  
Karine V. Plourde ◽  
Sabrina Guay-Bélanger ◽  
Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Services ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Scaling Up ◽  
Delphi Survey ◽  
The Public ◽  
Health And Social Services ◽  
Scoping Reviews

Abstract Background The scale-up of evidence-based innovations is required to reduce waste and inequities in health and social services (HSS). However, it often tends to be a top-down process initiated by policy makers, and the values of the intended beneficiaries are forgotten. Involving multiple stakeholders including patients and the public in the scaling-up process is thus essential but highly complex. We propose to identify relevant strategies for meaningfully and equitably involving patients and the public in the science and practice of scaling up in HSS. Methods We will adapt our overall method from the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Following this, we will perform a two-prong study design (knowledge synthesis and Delphi study) grounded in an integrated knowledge translation approach. This approach involves extensive participation of a network of stakeholders interested in patient and public involvement (PPI) in scaling up and a multidisciplinary steering committee. We will conduct a systematic scoping review following the methodology recommended in the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers Manual. We will use the following eligibility criteria: (1) participants—any stakeholder involved in creating or testing a strategy for PPI; (2) intervention—any PPI strategy proposed for scaling-up initiatives; (3) comparator—no restriction; (4) outcomes: any process or outcome metrics related to PPI; and (5) setting—HSS. We will search electronic databases (e.g., Medline, Web of Science, Sociological Abstract) from inception onwards, hand search relevant websites, screen the reference lists of included records, and consult experts in the field. Two reviewers will independently select and extract eligible studies. We will summarize data quantitatively and qualitatively and report results using the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. We will conduct an online Delphi survey to achieve consensus on the relevant strategies for PPI in scaling-up initiatives in HSS. Participants will include stakeholders from low-, middle-, and high-income countries. We anticipate that three rounds will allow an acceptable degree of agreement on research priorities. Discussion Our findings will advance understanding of how to meaningfully and equitably involve patients and the public in scaling-up initiatives for sustainable HSS. Systematic review registration We registered this protocol with the Open Science Framework on August 19, 2020 (https://osf.io/zqpx7/).

scholarly journals Strategies for involving patients and the public in scaling-up initiatives in health and social services: study protocol for a scoping review and Delphi survey

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Ben Charif ◽  
Karine V. Plourde ◽  
Sabrina Guay-Belanger ◽  
Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun ◽  
Amédé Gogovor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Services ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Scaling Up ◽  
Delphi Survey ◽  
The Public ◽  
Health And Social Services ◽  
Scoping Reviews

Abstract Background: The scale-up of evidence-based innovations is required to reduce waste and inequities in health and social services (HSS). However, it often tends to be a top-down process initiated by policy-makers, and the values of the intended beneficiaries are forgotten. Involving multiple stakeholders including patients and the public in the scaling-up process is thus essential but highly complex. We propose to identify relevant strategies for meaningfully and equitably involving patients and the public in the science and practice of scaling up in HSS.Methods: We will adapt our overall method from the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Following this, we will perform a two-prong study design (knowledge synthesis and Delphi study) grounded in an integrated knowledge translation approach. This approach involves extensive participation of a network of stakeholders interested in patient and public involvement (PPI) in scaling up and a multidisciplinary steering committee. We will conduct a systematic scoping review following the methodology recommended in the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers Manual. We will use the following eligibility criteria: 1) Participants – any stakeholder involved in creating or testing a strategy for PPI; 2) Intervention – any PPI strategy proposed for scaling-up initiatives; 3) Comparator – no restriction; 4) Outcomes: any process or outcome metrics related to PPI; and 5) Setting – HSS. We will search electronic databases (e.g., Medline, Web of Science, Sociological Abstract) from inception onwards, hand searching relevant websites, screen the reference lists of included records, and consult experts in the field. Two reviewers will independently select and extract eligible studies. We will summarize data quantitatively and qualitatively and report results using the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. We will conduct an online Delphi survey to achieve consensus on the relevant strategies for PPI in scaling-up initiatives in HSS. Participants will include stakeholders from low-, middle-, and high-income countries. We anticipate that three rounds will allow an acceptable degree of agreement on research priorities. Discussion: Our findings will advance understanding of how to meaningfully and equitably involve patients and the public in scaling-up initiatives for sustainable HSS.Registration: We registered this protocol with the Open Science Framework on August 19, 2020 (https://osf.io/zqpx7/).

scholarly journals Strategies for Involving Patients and the Public in Scaling-Up Initiatives in Health and Social Services: Protocol for a Two-Pong Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Ben Charif ◽  
Karine V. Plourde ◽  
Sabrina Guay-Belanger ◽  
Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun ◽  
Amédé Gogovor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Services ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Scaling Up ◽  
Knowledge Synthesis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
The Public ◽  
Health And Social Services

Abstract Background: The scale-up of evidence-based innovations is required to reduce waste and inequities in health and social services (HSS). However, it often tends to be a top-down process initiated by policy-makers, and the values of the intended beneficiaries are forgotten. Involving multiple stakeholders including patients and the public in the scaling-up process is thus essential but highly complex. We propose to identify relevant strategies for meaningfully and equitably involving patients and the public in the science and practice of scaling up in HSS.Methods: Design: We will adapt our overall method from the RAND Appropriateness Method. Following this, we will perform a two-component study design (knowledge synthesis and Delphi study) grounded in an integrated knowledge translation (iKT) approach. This approach involves extensive participation of a network of stakeholders interested in patient and public involvement (PPI) in scaling up and a multidisciplinary steering committee. Knowledge synthesis: We will conduct a systematic scoping review following the methodology recommended in the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers Manual. We will use the following eligibility criteria: 1) Participants - any stakeholder involved in creating or testing a strategy for PPI; 2) Intervention - any PPI strategy proposed for scaling-up initiatives; 3) Comparator - no restriction; 4) Outcomes: any process or outcome metrics related to PPI; and 5) Setting - HSS. We will search electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, Sociological Abstract), hand searching relevant websites, screen the reference lists of included records, and consult experts in the field. Two reviewers will independently select and extract eligible studies. We will summarize data quantitatively and qualitatively and report results using the PRISMA extension guidelines. Delphi study: We will conduct an online Delphi survey to achieve consensus on the relevant strategies for PPI in scaling-up initiatives in HSS. Participants will include stakeholders from low-, middle-, and high-income countries. We anticipate that three rounds will allow an acceptable degree of agreement on research priorities.Discussion: Our findings will advance understanding of how to meaningfully and equitably involve patients and the public in scaling-up initiatives for sustainable HSS.Registration: We registered this protocol with the Open Science Framework on August 19, 2020 (https://osf.io/zqpx7/).

scholarly journals Analysis of Available Nutrition Recommendations to Combat COVID-19: A Scoping Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 18-45
Author(s):  
Norsyamlina Che Abdul Rahim ◽  
Jayvikramjit Singh Manjit Singh ◽  
Munawara Pardi ◽  
Ahmad Ali Zainuddin ◽  
Ruhaya Salleh
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Eating Habits ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Dietary Recommendations ◽  
The Public ◽  
Inaccurate Information ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Healthy Eating Habits ◽  
Nutritional Recommendation ◽  
Available Information

The current COVID-19 pandemic remains severe. There is no doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting every aspect of our lives. Currently, the spread of inaccurate information or fake news on the internet to the public is causing the community to panic. Thus, this study aims to obtain available information on food and nutrition related to the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 from various sources. A scoping review framework was used to chart the evidence on nutritional recommendations to prevent COVID-19 based on the preferred method in reporting systematic review and meta-analysis extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The articles were categorised into three main groups: i) general dietary recommendations; ii) supplementation with specific micronutrients and iii) their mixtures and supplementation with traditional herbs and miscellaneous foods. A total of 60 articles met the inclusion criteria and were used in the review. This scoping review demonstrates that there is no miracle cure, food or supplement that can cure or prevent COVID-19. Currently, there is no confirmed treatment or vaccine for the disease. Practicing healthy eating habits is the best nutritional recommendation during the pandemic. Hence, this review hopefully will provide evidence-based nutrition recommendations that are available for current COVID-19 treatment. We hope that the authorities can inform the public and media to stop the spread of nutrition pseudoscience in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

scholarly journals Standardized Protocol Items Recommendations for Observational Studies (SPIROS) for Observational Study Protocol Reporting Guidelines: Protocol for a Delphi Study (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raman Mahajan ◽  
Sakib Burza ◽  
Lex M Bouter ◽  
Klaas Sijtsma ◽  
André Knottnerus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Study Protocol ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Delphi Survey ◽  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Standardized Protocol ◽  
Study Protocols

BACKGROUND Approximately 90% of currently published clinical and public health research is in the form of observational studies. Having a detailed and registered study protocol prior to data collection is important in any empirical study. Without this, there is no reliable way to assess the occurrence of publication bias, outcome reporting bias, and other protocol deviations. However, there is currently no solid guidance available on the information that a protocol for an observational study should contain. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to formulate the Standardized Protocol Items Recommendations for Observational Studies (SPIROS) reporting guidelines, which focus on 3 main study designs of analytical epidemiology: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. METHODS A scoping review of published protocol papers of observational studies in epidemiology will identify candidate items for the SPIROS reporting guidelines. The list of items will be extended with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist items and recommendations from the SPIROS steering committee. This long list serves as the basis for a 2-round Delphi survey among experts to obtain consensus on which items to include. Each candidate item from the long list will be rated on a 5-point Likert scale to assess relevance for inclusion in the SPIROS reporting guidelines. Following the Delphi survey, an expert-driven consensus workshop will be convened to finalize the reporting guidelines. RESULTS A scoping review of published observational study protocols has been completed, with 59 candidate items identified for inclusion into the Delphi survey, itself launched in early 2020. CONCLUSIONS This project aims to improve the timeliness, completeness, and clarity of study protocols of observational studies in analytical epidemiology by producing expert-based recommendations of items to be addressed. These reporting guidelines will facilitate and encourage researchers to prepare and register study protocols of sufficient quality prior to data collection in order to improve the transparency, reproducibility, and quality of observational studies. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT PRR1-10.2196/17864

scholarly journals Diet quality, food insecurity and risk of cardiovascular diseases among adults living with HIV/AIDS: a scoping review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. e047314
Author(s):  
Iyanuoluwa Oyedeji Oyetunji ◽  
Alastair Duncan ◽  
Sharmilah Booley ◽  
Janetta Harbron
Keyword(s):  
Cardiovascular Diseases ◽  
Food Insecurity ◽  
Diet Quality ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
People Living With Hiv ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Living With Hiv

IntroductionCardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are the single greatest contributor to global mortality. The successful introduction and scale-up of antiretroviral therapy (ART) delivered a reduction in HIV mortality. Consequently, an association was found between the scale-up of ART and an increased prevalence of comorbidities among people living with HIV (PLWH) such as hypertension and dyslipidaemia. A higher quality diet can delay the onset of comorbidities related to HIV infection. Diet quality and its methods of assessment are not fully established among PLWH. This review will identify the diet quality and food insecurity indices that have been used among PLWH and how these constructs are associated with risk of developing CVD.Methods and analysisThe frameworks recommended by Arksey and O’Malley and the Joanna Briggs Institute’s manual for conducting scoping reviews will be adopted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines will be used for reporting. A search strategy was developed using keywords related to the topic. A preliminary MEDLINE (via PubMed) search was conducted on 11 November 2020 to develop a comprehensive search strategy. The final search will be conducted on PubMed, EbscoHost, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases. Titles and abstracts of retrieved records will be screened independently by two reviewers. Data will be extracted from records that meet the inclusion criteria using a predesigned charting tool. Discrepancies in decisions made by reviewers will be resolved by consensus or the decision of a third reviewer. Extracted data will be presented in tables or charts. A descriptive summary of the charts or tables will follow.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for a scoping review. Findings will inform other studies currently underway and will be presented at conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.Registration numberhttps://osf.io/7k3ja.

scholarly journals Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in preclinical research: A scoping review protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 61
Author(s):  
Pádraig Carroll ◽  
Adrian Dervan ◽  
Anthony Maher ◽  
Ciarán McCarthy ◽  
Ian Woods ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
The Body ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Advisory Panel ◽  
Preclinical Research ◽  
Scoping Reviews

Introduction: Patient and public involvement (PPI) aims to improve the quality, relevance, and appropriateness of research and ensure that it meets the needs and expectations of those affected by particular conditions to the greatest possible degree. The evidence base for the positive impact of PPI on clinical research continues to grow, but the role of PPI in preclinical research (an umbrella term encompassing ‘basic’, ‘fundamental’, ‘translational’ or ‘lab-based’ research) remains limited. As funding bodies and policymakers continue to increase emphasis on the relevance of PPI to preclinical research, it is timely to map the PPI literature to support preclinical researchers involving the public, patients, or other service users in their research. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review is to explore the literature on patient and public involvement in preclinical research from any discipline. Methods: This scoping review will search the literature in Medline (PubMed), Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and OpenGrey.net to explore the application of PPI in preclinical research. This review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines for scoping reviews. It will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Two reviewers will independently review articles for inclusion in the final review. Data extraction will be guided by the research questions. The PPI advisory panel will then collaboratively identify themes in the extracted data. Discussion: This scoping review will provide a map of current evidence surrounding preclinical PPI, and identify the body of literature on this topic, which has not been comprehensively reviewed to date. Findings will inform ongoing work of the research team, support the work of other preclinical researchers aiming to include PPI in their own research, and identify knowledge and practice gaps. Areas for future research will be identified.

scholarly journals Incorporating and Evaluating Citizen Engagement in Health Research: a Scoping Review Protocol

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anmol Shahid ◽  
Brianna K Rosgen ◽  
Karla K Krewulak ◽  
Diane L Lorenzetti ◽  
Nadine Foster ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Citizen Engagement ◽  
The Public ◽  
Implementation Evaluation ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Meaningful Engagement ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Planning Decision

Abstract Background: Citizen engagement in research is an emerging practice that involves members of the general public in research processes such as priority-setting, planning, decision-making, research conduct, implementation, evaluation, and dissemination. Engaging citizens in research, particularly health research, increases the relevance of study findings, minimizes waste by facilitating stewardship over resources, and builds public trust in the research. While several existing frameworks guide the application of citizen engagement principles to health research, it is unclear how citizen engagement can be utilized to maximize benefits and minimize risks and challenges in health research. To address the gaps in knowledge around citizen engagement in health research, we propose a scoping review to synthesize the state of knowledge on methods to incorporate and evaluate citizen engagement in research. A protocol is presented in this manuscript. Methods: The methodology for our scoping review is guided by Arksey and O’ Malley’s framework for scoping reviews, and additional recommendations by Levac and colleagues. We will include peer-reviewed and grey literature that report on citizen engagement in health research (including biomedical, clinical, health systems and services, and social, cultural, environmental and population health) and report method(s) to conduct, measure, or evaluate citizen engagement. We will systematically search electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, JSTOR, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Science Direct) and relevant organizations’ websites for additional studies, frameworks, and reports on citizen engagement. Title and abstract and full-text citations will be screened independently and in duplicate. Data will be extracted independently and in duplicate, including: document characteristics, citizen engagement definitions and goals, and outcomes of citizen engagement (e.g., impact, barriers, facilitators). Discussion: This review will synthesize the definitions, goals, methods, outcomes, and significance of citizen engagement in health research, as well as any potential barriers, facilitators, and challenges outlined in existing literature. The findings will provide an evidence-based foundation for developing new or improved guidance for citizen engagement in health research. Overall, we anticipate that our scoping review will be a preliminary step to meaningful engagement of citizens in research and strengthen the relationship between the scientific community and the public through transparency and collaboration.SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Conversational Agents in Health Education: A Scoping Review Protocol (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammed Zayan Nizam ◽  
Leigh Powell ◽  
Nabil Zary
Keyword(s):  
Health Education ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Specific Area ◽  
Conversational Agents ◽  
The Public ◽  
Daunting Task ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Review Protocol

BACKGROUND Conversational agents can reach people where they are at, existing online, on mobile phones, or even through hardware like Alexa and Siri, making information easier to access and providing an engaging method of interaction. It makes sense that chatbots would also start to emerge to improve public health through health education. While building a chatbot is getting easier, there is still required time and effort. There is also a lack of clarity and consistent terminology about what kinds of chatbots are out there, how they are developed, and the kind of resources needed to develop and sustain them. This lack of clarity makes a daunting task for those seeking to build health education initiatives. Our scoping review seeks to categorize conversational agents in healthcare education in alignment with current classifications and terminology emerging from the marketplace. We will define the terminology of levels of conversational agents, categorize current agents along with these levels and describe the uses, resources, and evaluations common to these levels. OBJECTIVE This scoping review aims to identify literature that reports on the design and implementation of conversational agents to promote and educate the public on matters related to health. METHODS This scoping review will be conducted by employing the Arksey and O’Malley framework. We will also be adhering to the enhancements and updates proposed by Levac et al. and Peters et al. The PRISMA extension for scoping reviews will guide the reporting of this scoping review. A systematic search for published and grey literature will be undertaken from the following databases (1) PubMed, (2) PsychINFO, (2) Embase, (4) Web of Science, (5) SCOPUS, (6) CINAHL, (7) ERIC, (8) MEDLINE, (9) Google Scholar. Data charting will be done using a structured format. RESULTS Initial searches of the databases retrieved 1,480 results. The results will be presented in the final scoping review in both a narrative and illustrative manner. CONCLUSIONS Reviewers have previously explored conversational agents in health. However, to the authors' knowledge, there has been no review conducted in the specific area of our interest –Health Education. Therefore, this review will provide a map of the literature in this area and clarify and define the heterogeneous terms found in the literature. This information will help healthcare professionals and administrators to understand what kinds of chatbots would be appropriate in their setting. And through our charted data could also help them understand what kind of resources or expertise is required for the different chatbots in use.

scholarly journals Implementation of health-focused interventions in vulnerable populations: protocol for a scoping review

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. e036937
Author(s):  
Amanda M Midboe ◽  
Caroline Gray ◽  
Hannah Cheng ◽  
Leonore Okwara ◽  
Randall C Gale
Keyword(s):  
Social Services ◽  
Vulnerable Populations ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
English Language ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Large Body ◽  
Care Continuum ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionVulnerable populations face significant challenges in navigating the care continuum, ranging from diagnosis of illness to linkage and retention in healthcare. Understanding how best to move individuals within these vulnerable populations across the care continuum is critical to improving their health. A large body of literature has focused on evaluation of implementation of various health-focused interventions in this population. However, we do not fully understand the unique challenges to implementing healthcare interventions for vulnerable populations. This study aims to examine the literature describing implementation of health service interventions among vulnerable populations to identify how implementations using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research are adapted. Findings from this review will be useful to implementation scientists to identify gaps in evidence and for adapting similar interventions in unique settings.Methods and analysisThis study protocol outlines a scoping review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature, using established approaches delineated in Arksey and O'Malley’s scoping review framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist. Search strategies will be developed and refined by a medical librarian in collaboration with the research team. Searches will be conducted in electronic databases (CINAHL, Cochrane, PsychINFO, PubMed, Social Services Abstracts, Web of Science, Google and Google Scholar) and limited to studies published between 1 August 2009 and 1 June 2020. Additionally, hand searches will be conducted in three relevant journals—Implementation Science, Systematic Reviews and BMJ Open. English-language studies and reports meeting inclusion criteria will be screened independently by two reviewers and the final list will be abstracted and charted in duplicate.Ethics and disseminationThis is a review of the literature; ethics approval is not indicated. We will disseminate findings from this study in peer-reviewed journals as well as presentations to relevant stakeholders and conferences.

Creating Innovative Public Services by Fostering Conflicts

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Rossi ◽  
Pasi-Heikki Rannisto ◽  
Jari Stenvall
Keyword(s):  
Social Services ◽  
Public Service ◽  
Public Services ◽  
Critical Realism ◽  
Public Administrators ◽  
The Public ◽  
Health And Social Services ◽  
Public Sector Leadership ◽  
Service Perspective

This article presents a case study focused on the conflicting logics of multiple actors involved in planning, organizing and providing health and social services in an innovative way. The aim was to empirically approach the experiences of the actors coping with the complexity of the multiple, often contradictory logics, concluding with a theoretical approach on how the leadership could strengthen the development of innovative public services. Data consisted of documents, observations and interviews and was analyzed through a critical realism approach. The purpose of this qualitative case study was to increase the understanding of the leadership as a constraining and an enabling force when developing innovative public services in a networked environment. As a result, two conflicting institutional logics were found: the costs-based logic of the public administrators and politicians, and the service-based logic of the citizens and public service producers, and the needs to consider the service perspective, new hybrid practices and changing meanings given to cooperation in public sector leadership are covered.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document