La participación de pacientes y ciudadanos en la investigación contribuye a mejorar la relevancia de los estudios, aunque su presentación en la literatura es inconsistente y poco clara. Para mejorar la transparencia y la calidad de esta participación se desarrollaron las guías GRIPP2 (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public), que ofrecen orientación específica para una presentación sistemática y transparente. Esta nota metodológica describe la adaptación y traducción al español de dichas guías, con el objetivo de fomentar la calidad, la coherencia y la transparencia en la evidencia sobre la participación de pacientes y ciudadanos en la investigación. Se presentan dos versiones: GRIPP2 formulario largo, con 34 ítems orientados a estudios en los que la participación de pacientes y ciudadanos es el foco principal, y GRIPP2 formulario corto, con 5 ítems para estudios en los que esta participación es un componente secundario. Las guías están dirigidas fundamentalmente a investigadores y autores que quieran incorporar la participación de pacientes y ciudadanos en sus investigaciones, así como a revisores y editores de revistas. Además, también pueden ser de interés para responsables de políticas de investigación, agencias financiadoras, agencias de evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias y, por supuesto, pacientes y ciudadanos.
This quantitative comparative study looks at cross-national variations in the regulation of the teaching profession and the way they shape how teachers perceive the value of their profession, feel about their employment conditions, work environment, and profession, and their attrition intention within the next 5 years. It draws on a theoretical typology that distinguishes four models of profession regulation and tests their effects with a sample of 16 countries having participated in the TALIS 2018 survey. While results highlight cross-country differences; comparisons between models of regulation add highly significantly to the prediction of these outcomes.
Background This review identifies and describes clinical prioritisation tools used to rank patients on surgical waiting lists for cataract surgery, knee replacement, and inguinal hernia repair, and evaluate the effect of these tools on elective surgery waiting times. Methods We conducted a systematic review following Cochrane Rapid Review methods and PRISMA guidelines. Searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar to identify studies evaluating prioritisation tools for cataract surgery, knee replacement, and inguinal hernia repair. We described the tools, their criteria and domains, assessed psychometric performance, and synthesised evidence on waiting-time outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE methodology. Results Forty-six studies were included: 25 on cataract surgery, 19 on knee replacement, and 2 on inguinal hernia repair. Nine prioritisation tools were identified for cataract surgery, six for knee replacement, and two for inguinal hernia repair. Across the three procedures, identified tools incorporated multiple domains reflecting differences in clinical characteristics and disease burden. Evidence on psychometric performance and waiting-time effects was available only for cataract surgery and knee replacement and showed weak to moderate correlations with other tools. Evidence on the impact of prioritisation on waiting times was heterogeneous. Non-randomised studies showed weak associations between priority scores and surgical order, with longer waits for lower-priority patients in some settings. Modelling studies suggested either overall reductions in waiting times or reductions confined to high-priority patients. Conclusions Prioritisation tools adopt procedure-specific, multidimensional approaches, but evidence supporting their effectiveness in reducing waiting times is heterogeneous and, in some cases, uncertain.
