Scholarlink

<p>This study aimed to explore the role of diversity and inclusivity in psychosocial oncology research, as perceived by researchers in the field, and to identify the barriers they face and strategies they use to make all stages of their research more representative. Researchers on the POCON mailing list received an invitation to complete a&#xa0;self-compiled online questionnaire with open and closed questions about diversity and inclusivity in their research, as well as barriers they experience and strategies they use to make their research more inclusive. They were also asked to forward this invitation to colleagues. Closed-ended responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, while open-ended responses were analyzed using thematic analysis. In addition, an online focus group was held in Teams in which strategies were assessed for expected effort and effect according to the Impact Plan Approach. All authors participated; the focus group was chaired by FM. They are PhD researchers in psychology, epidemiology, and health sciences. Sixty respondents completed the questionnaire. Of these, 28% had evaluated the diversity and inclusivity of their own research without taking any further action; 32% had also taken action. Significant barriers included a&#xa0;lack of knowledge, experience, and awareness, as well as limited methods and resources. Strategies with expected high impact but high effort mentioned during the focus group included recruitment through key figures, alignment with the target group, adapted communication tools, and support for study participation. Respondents indicated that they still pay little attention to representativeness in psychosocial oncology research. Researchers experience barriers at all stages of their research, but also report strategies that promote representativeness. These strategies require structural effort, also from other stakeholders, including grant providers and medical ethics committees.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Diversiteit en inclusiviteit in psychosociaal oncologisch onderzoek in Nederland en aanbevelingen voor de verbetering van representativiteit

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月21日

查看全文
  • Kelly de Ligt,
  • Fabiola Müller,
  • Tom I. Bootsma,
  • Saskia Duijts,
  • Nicole P. M. Ezendam,
  • Simone Oerlemans,
  • Meeke Hoedjes

摘要

This study aimed to explore the role of diversity and inclusivity in psychosocial oncology research, as perceived by researchers in the field, and to identify the barriers they face and strategies they use to make all stages of their research more representative. Researchers on the POCON mailing list received an invitation to complete a self-compiled online questionnaire with open and closed questions about diversity and inclusivity in their research, as well as barriers they experience and strategies they use to make their research more inclusive. They were also asked to forward this invitation to colleagues. Closed-ended responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, while open-ended responses were analyzed using thematic analysis. In addition, an online focus group was held in Teams in which strategies were assessed for expected effort and effect according to the Impact Plan Approach. All authors participated; the focus group was chaired by FM. They are PhD researchers in psychology, epidemiology, and health sciences. Sixty respondents completed the questionnaire. Of these, 28% had evaluated the diversity and inclusivity of their own research without taking any further action; 32% had also taken action. Significant barriers included a lack of knowledge, experience, and awareness, as well as limited methods and resources. Strategies with expected high impact but high effort mentioned during the focus group included recruitment through key figures, alignment with the target group, adapted communication tools, and support for study participation. Respondents indicated that they still pay little attention to representativeness in psychosocial oncology research. Researchers experience barriers at all stages of their research, but also report strategies that promote representativeness. These strategies require structural effort, also from other stakeholders, including grant providers and medical ethics committees.