Research priorities set by people with OCD and OCD researchers: Do the commonalities outweigh the differences?

强迫症患者和强迫症研究人员设定的研究重点:共同点是否大于差异?

阅读:1

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In contrast to research agendas being predominantly set by scientists or funders, a collaborative approach was used to spot future goals for research on obsessive-compulsive disorder. METHODS: First, we conducted a meta-review and then compared the results of two online surveys with OCD professionals and patients on research priorities. The literature search was performed in three comprehensive databases, and ten research goals were extracted. Sixty-four patients and eight professionals responded to open questions on their five most important goals. Then, they ranked the ten aims extracted from the literature on a 6-point Likert scale. RESULTS: For patients and professionals, research on treatment gains that persist long-term was most important. Concerning the top five goals listed in an open format, for patients, development and maintenance of the disease was as important as psychotherapy and its efficacy. In contrast, for professionals, the efficacy and the optimization of psychotherapy were the far most important research goals. CONCLUSIONS: We proposed one possibility to involve patients in OCD research, and the multitude of answers presents a wealth of research ideas. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Since consistent research involvement may contribute to its clinical impact, researchers are now invited to translate our findings into empirical studies.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。