FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4322201534> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4322201534 endingPage "953" @default.
• W4322201534 startingPage "952" @default.
• W4322201534 abstract "The perspectives of youth, adults and family with lived experience and key knowledge users such as health-care providers and decision-makers are critical to further inform these priorities for cognitive intervention research. Verdejo-Garcia and colleagues [1] outline a large-scale and collaborative effort to identify research priorities to address cognitive deficits in substance use disorders. This commentary outlines additional considerations to ensure that strategic and coordinated research priorities have a meaningful impact upon health systems. Put most clearly, the input of youth, adults and family with lived experience and key knowledge users such as health-care providers and decision-makers is critical for cognitive intervention research with impact. As long noted in health science research, the substantial gaps between research and practice require greater connection between academic and knowledge user groups. Increased connectedness between researchers and knowledge users facilitates knowledge mobilization [2] and research impact [3]. It is increasingly considered essential to engage knowledge users in all stages of research focusing upon issues relevant to them, to improve research quality and relevance [4]. Frameworks have been developed to support and advocate for this approach, including Canada's Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) Framework [5], the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health Research [6] and the American Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Network [7]. Substance use research is commonly conducted with limited to no involvement of people who use substances; this practice has the potential not only to fail to address key issues but also to even intensify stigma and marginalization [8, 9]. Verdejo-Garcia and colleagues highlight the potential for the identified consensus to provide a roadmap to direct future participatory research; however, the incorporation of knowledge users to inform the roadmap itself holds considerable value. Indeed, frameworks for engagement such as those noted above recognize the skills and expertise that stakeholders can bring to research and decision-making processes [10]. Research guidelines and frameworks developed by and for people who use substances are available to promote more effective research partnerships at this early stage and may be particularly helpful, as other guidance materials can emphasize health-care providers and decision-makers rather than those with lived experience or the broader community [11]. Recently published key issues in the field further underscore the key importance of engagement from the very beginning of the research process in the substance use field [12]. The input of broad knowledge user groups is particularly important to extend this novel consensus to include harmonized and equitable (a) outcomes and (b) implementation approaches. Regarding outcomes, Verdejo-Garcia and colleagues carefully derive consensus on cognitive targets in cognitive intervention research, and it is likely that primary outcomes would include measures of these targets. However, cognitive intervention research in other domains highlights the importance of functional recovery outcome measures within this research [13, 14]. Indeed, these functional recovery outcomes have greater ecological validity than many cognitive outcomes and often align more closely with patient treatment goals. Such goals are also aligned with long-standing calls in substance use research to go beyond substance use frequency and abstinence as primary outcomes [15]. Nevertheless, those with lived experience as well as health-care providers and decision-makers are critical to determining harmonized outcomes that are relevant and meaningful to health systems and those that access them. Regarding implementation, it is increasingly recognized that nuanced efficacy research must be followed by equally rigorous implementation science research to support the integration of interventions into health systems. Verdejo-Garcia and colleagues do not explicitly endorse a specific approach to this essential phase of research, which would similarly benefit from broad consensus and harmonization. Frameworks such as the Damschroder et al. [16] Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research may support an approach to implementing cognitive interventions globally in a standardized manner and harmonizing implementation outcomes in the future. Consensus upon implementation outcome measures such as acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, penetration, sustainability and fidelity is key to a relevant, common and comprehensive list of key outcomes, which may more effectively advance the field and mobilize this knowledge. In summary, health research has long been characterized by a ‘know–do’ gap wherein the results of research frequently fail to be realized in practice and policy [17]. Investigations of cognitive interventions can meaningfully advance both theory and practice. Restructuring health research to prioritize partnerships between researchers and knowledge users, even at the earliest stage of identifying research priorities, is integral to conduct meaningful and impactful research for all [18]. None. There are no financial or other relevant links to companies with an interest in the topic of this article. Lena C. Quilty: Conceptualization (lead); writing—original draft (lead); writing—review and editing (lead)." @default.
• W4322201534 created "2023-02-27" @default.
• W4322201534 creator A5051165798 @default.
• W4322201534 date "2023-02-26" @default.
• W4322201534 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W4322201534 title "Commentary on Verdejo‐Garcia <i>et al</i>.: Cognitive training and remediation: identifying priorities for intervention research" @default.
• W4322201534 cites W2020155291 @default.
• W4322201534 cites W2059767582 @default.
• W4322201534 cites W2093398771 @default.
• W4322201534 cites W2124184213 @default.
• W4322201534 cites W2297168878 @default.
• W4322201534 cites W2573058283 @default.
• W4322201534 cites W2597633415 @default.
• W4322201534 cites W2940916865 @default.
• W4322201534 cites W2947989433 @default.
• W4322201534 cites W2955969132 @default.
• W4322201534 cites W3037778580 @default.
• W4322201534 cites W4281396786 @default.
• W4322201534 cites W4311203432 @default.
• W4322201534 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/add.16155" @default.
• W4322201534 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36843063" @default.
• W4322201534 hasPublicationYear "2023" @default.
• W4322201534 type Work @default.
• W4322201534 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W4322201534 countsByYear W43222015342023 @default.
• W4322201534 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4322201534 hasAuthorship W4322201534A5051165798 @default.
• W4322201534 hasBestOaLocation W43222015341 @default.
• W4322201534 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W4322201534 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W4322201534 hasConcept C158154518 @default.
• W4322201534 hasConcept C159110408 @default.
• W4322201534 hasConcept C160735492 @default.
• W4322201534 hasConcept C169900460 @default.
• W4322201534 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4322201534 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4322201534 hasConcept C2780665704 @default.
• W4322201534 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W4322201534 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4322201534 hasConceptScore W4322201534C118552586 @default.
• W4322201534 hasConceptScore W4322201534C15744967 @default.
• W4322201534 hasConceptScore W4322201534C158154518 @default.
• W4322201534 hasConceptScore W4322201534C159110408 @default.
• W4322201534 hasConceptScore W4322201534C160735492 @default.
• W4322201534 hasConceptScore W4322201534C169900460 @default.
• W4322201534 hasConceptScore W4322201534C17744445 @default.
• W4322201534 hasConceptScore W4322201534C199539241 @default.
• W4322201534 hasConceptScore W4322201534C2780665704 @default.
• W4322201534 hasConceptScore W4322201534C509550671 @default.
• W4322201534 hasConceptScore W4322201534C71924100 @default.
• W4322201534 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W4322201534 hasLocation W43222015341 @default.
• W4322201534 hasLocation W43222015342 @default.
• W4322201534 hasOpenAccess W4322201534 @default.
• W4322201534 hasPrimaryLocation W43222015341 @default.
• W4322201534 hasRelatedWork W1835907303 @default.
• W4322201534 hasRelatedWork W2049612369 @default.
• W4322201534 hasRelatedWork W2085384747 @default.
• W4322201534 hasRelatedWork W2088166309 @default.
• W4322201534 hasRelatedWork W2106071040 @default.
• W4322201534 hasRelatedWork W2276587472 @default.
• W4322201534 hasRelatedWork W2615795876 @default.
• W4322201534 hasRelatedWork W4238976562 @default.
• W4322201534 hasRelatedWork W4248323080 @default.
• W4322201534 hasRelatedWork W4312133475 @default.
• W4322201534 hasVolume "118" @default.
• W4322201534 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4322201534 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4322201534 workType "article" @default.