Из опыта формирования творческой активности у школьников среднего звена при изучении геометрического материала

BACKGROUND:Current research suggests that while patients are becoming more engaged across the health delivery spectrum, this involvement occurs most often at the pre-preparation stage to identify 'high-level' priorities in health ecosystem priority setting, and at the preparation phase for health research. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this systematic rapid review of the literature is to describe the evidence that does exist in relation to patient and public engagement priority setting in both health ecosystem and health research. DATA SOURCES:HealthStar (via OVID); CINAHL; Proquest Databases; and Scholar's Portal. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:i) published in English; ii) published within the timeframe of 2007-Current (10 years) unless the report/article was formative in synthesizing key considerations of patient engagement in health ecosystem and health research priority setting; iii) conducted in Canada, the US, Europe, UK, Australia/New Zealand, or Scandinavian countries. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS:i) Is the research valid, sound, and applicable?; ii) what outcomes can we potentially expect if we implement the findings from this research?; iii) will the target population (i.e., health researchers and practitioners) be able to use this research?. A summary of findings from each of the respective processes was synthesized to highlight key information that would support decision-making for researchers when determining the best priority setting process to apply for their specific patient-oriented research. RESULTS:Seventy articles from the UK, US, Canada, Netherlands and Australia were selected for review. Results were organized into two tiers of public and patient engagement in prioritization: Tier 1-Deliberative and Tier 2-Consultative. Highly structured patient and public engagement planning activities include the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships (UK), Dialogue Method (Netherlands), Global Evidence Mapping (Australia), and the Deep Inclusion Method/CHoosing All Together (US). LIMITATIONS:The critical study limitations include challenges in comprehensively identifying the patient engagement literature for review, bias in article selection due to the identified scope, missed information due to a more limited use of exhaustive search strategies (e.g., in-depth hand searching), and the heterogeneity of reported study findings. CONCLUSION:The four public and patient engagement priority setting processes identified were successful in setting priorities that are inclusive and objectively based, specific to the priorities of stakeholders engaged in the process. The processes were robust, strategic and aimed to promote equity in patient voices. Key limitations identified a lack of evaluation data on the success and extent in which patients were engaged. Issues pertaining to feasibility of stakeholder engagement, coordination, communication and limited resources were also considered

Stratégie sur l’alimentation et la nutrition de l’Ontario : établissement d'indicateurs de l’accès aux aliments et de l’alphabétisme alimentaire pour un premier suivi de l’environnement alimentaire

Introduction : Une approche intergouvernementale multilatérale globale en matière d’élaboration de politiques est essentielle pour permettre aux Canadiens et aux Canadiennes de faire face aux défis que pose leur environnement alimentaire. Des indicateurs de l’environnement alimentaire sont nécessaires pour évaluer l’état et l’évolution de la population. La Stratégie sur l’alimentation et la nutrition de l’Ontario (SANO), qui regroupe les secteurs de l’alimentation, de l’agriculture et de la nutrition, vise à améliorer la santé de la population ontarienne par des interventions favorisant des systèmes et des environnements alimentaires sains. Cet article décrit le processus d’établissement d'indicateurs pour 11 secteurs d’intervention de la SANO dans deux orientations stratégiques : l’accès à des aliments sains et l’alphabétisme et les compétences alimentaires. Méthodologie : Le groupe consultatif sur les indicateurs de la SANO a suivi un processus en cinq étapes pour choisir les indicateurs : 1) choix des indicateurs potentiels dans les sources de données provinciales et nationales, 2) catégorisation des indicateurs par orientation stratégique, par secteur d’intervention et par type de données, 3) établissement, essai pilote et finalisation des critères de sélection, 4) application des critères finaux pour améliorer la liste des indicateurs et 5) établissement des indicateurs prioritaires après cette application finale des critères de sélection. Résultats : Soixante-neuf indicateurs potentiels ont été recensés au départ, mais un grand nombre d’entre eux offraient des mesures individuelles et non collectives. Après l’application finale des critères de sélection, ont été jugés prioritaires un indicateur individuel et six indicateurs collectifs associés à cinq secteurs d’intervention, aucun indicateur n’étant disponible pour les six autres secteurs d’intervention. Conclusion : Les limites des données existantes laissent penser qu’on ne peut sans doute pas qualifier certaines caractéristiques importantes de l’environnement alimentaire, d’où l’importance de prendre des mesures et d’allouer des ressources pour améliorer les indicateurs collectifs et d’appuyer le suivi de l’environnement alimentaire et de la santé alimentaire tant en Ontario que dans le reste du Canada

The Ontario Food and Nutrition Strategy: identifying indicators of food access and food literacy for early monitoring of the food environment

Introduction: To address challenges Canadians face within their food environments, a comprehensive, multistakeholder, intergovernmental approach to policy development is essential. Food environment indicators are needed to assess population status and change. The Ontario Food and Nutrition Strategy (OFNS) integrates the food, agriculture and nutrition sectors, and aims to improve the health of Ontarians through actions that promote healthy food systems and environments. This report describes the process of identifying indicators for 11 OFNS action areas in two strategic directions (SDs): Healthy Food Access, and Food Literacy and Skills. Methods: The OFNS Indicators Advisory Group used a five-step process to select indicators: (1) potential indicators from national and provincial data sources were identified; (2) indicators were organized by SD, action area and data type; (3) selection criteria were identified, pilot tested and finalized; (4) final criteria were applied to refine the indicator list; and (5) indicators were prioritized after reapplication of selection criteria. Results: Sixty-nine potential indicators were initially identified; however, many were individual-level rather than system-level measures. After final application of the selection criteria, one individual-level indicator and six system-level indicators were prioritized in five action areas; for six of the action areas, no indicators were available. Conclusion: Data limitations suggest that available data may not measure important aspects of the food environment, highlighting the need for action and resources to improve system-level indicators and support monitoring of the food environment and health in Ontario and across Canada

Tiered engagement processes and data collection activities for public and patient engagement prioritization.

<p>Tiered engagement processes and data collection activities for public and patient engagement prioritization.</p

Public and patient engagement priority setting process for health research summary.

<p>Public and patient engagement priority setting process for health research summary.</p

Levels of patient and researcher engagement in health research.

<p>Levels of patient and researcher engagement in health research.</p

Public and patient engagement matrix in health ecosystem & health research priority setting.

<p>Public and patient engagement matrix in health ecosystem & health research priority setting.</p

Public and patient engagement priority setting matrix of selected article characteristics.

<p>Public and patient engagement priority setting matrix of selected article characteristics.</p

People with lived experience (PWLE) of depression: describing and reflecting on an explicit patient engagement process within depression research priority setting in Alberta, Canada

Plain English summary The Alberta Depression Research Priority Setting Project aimed to meaningfully involve patients, families and clinicians in determining a research agenda aligned to the needs of Albertans who have experienced depression. The project was modeled after a process developed in the UK by the James Lind Alliance and adapted to fit the Alberta, Canada context. This study describes the processes used to ensure the voices of people with lived experience of depression were integrated throughout the project stages. The year long project culminated with a facilitated session to identify the top essential areas of depression research focus. People with lived experience were engaged as part of the project’s Steering Committee, as survey participants and as workshop participants. It is hoped this process will guide future priority setting opportunities and advance depression research in Alberta. Abstract Background The Depression Research Priority Setting (DRPS) project has the clear aim of describing the patient engagement process used to identify depression research priorities and to reflect on the successes of this engagement approach, positive impacts and opportunities for improvement. To help support patient-oriented depression research priority setting in Alberta, the Patient Engagement (PE) Platform of the Alberta Strategy for Patient Oriented Research Support for People and Patient-Oriented Research and Trials (SUPPORT) Unit designed, along with the support of their partners in addictions and mental health, an explit process to engage patients in the design and execution of the DRPS. Methods The UK’s James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) method was adapted into a six step process to ensure voices of “people with lived experience” (PWLE) with depression were included throughout the project stages. This study uses an explicit and parallel patient engagement process throughout each estage of the PSP designed by the PE Platform. Patient engagement was divided into a five step process: i) Awareness and relationship building; ii) Co-designing and co-developing a shared decision making process; iii) Collaborative communication; iv) Collective sensemaking; and v) Acknowledgement, celebration and recognition. A formative evaluation of the six PE processes was undertaken to explore the success of the parallel patient engagement process. Results This project was successful in engaging people with lived depression experience as partners in research priority setting, incorporating their voices into the discussions and decisions that led to the top 25 depression research questions. Conclusions The DRPS project has positively contributed to depression research in Canada by identifying the priorities of Albertans who have experienced depression for depression research. Dissemination activities to promote further knowledge exchange of prioritized research questions, with emphasis on the importance of process in engaging the voices of PWLE of depression are planned