Research agendas involving patients: Factors that facilitate or impede translation of patients' perspectives in programming and implementation

被引:21
作者
Pittens, Carina A. C. M. [1 ]
Elberse, Janneke E. [1 ]
Visse, Merel [2 ]
Abma, Tineke A. [2 ]
Broerse, Jacqueline E. W. [1 ]
机构
[1] Vrije Univ Amsterdam, Fac Earth & Life Sci, Athena Inst Res Innovat & Commun Hlth & Life Sci, NL-1081 HV Amsterdam, Netherlands
[2] Vrije Univ Amsterdam Med Ctr, EMGO Inst Hlth & Care Res, NL-1081 BT Amsterdam, Netherlands
关键词
Dialogue model; the Netherlands; priority setting; patient involvement; research agenda-setting; patients and researchers' research priorities; HEALTH RESEARCH; RESEARCH PRIORITIES; DECISION-MAKING; INVOLVEMENT; PARTICIPATION; UNCERTAINTIES; PARTNERS; FUTURE; PEOPLE; CARE;
D O I
10.1093/scipol/scu010
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Patients are increasingly involved in agenda setting in health research policy, but little is known about whether or not patients' topics are translated into a funding programme and taken up by researchers. A qualitative evaluation of nine multi-stakeholder agenda-setting projects in the Netherlands was conducted. Document study and 54 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders were undertaken. Three strategies for the translation of research agendas into research programmes were identified: first, one-on-one translation; second, agendas were used to adapt general policies; and third, no translation. A number of factors, facilitating or impeding this translation, were identified, relating to the context or the process of programming and implementation. Context appeared to be crucial: positive attitudes towards patient involvement, good relations between stakeholders and supportive characteristics of organizations. Patient involvement was rarely sustained during programming and implementation. These insights contribute to more effective procedures for programming and implementing research agendas.
引用
收藏
页码:809 / 820
页数:12
相关论文
共 59 条
  • [1] Does deliberation make a difference? Results from a citizens panel study of health goals priority setting
    Abelson, J
    Eyles, J
    McLeod, CB
    Collins, P
    McMullan, C
    Forest, PG
    [J]. HEALTH POLICY, 2003, 66 (01) : 95 - 106
  • [2] Abma T., 2007, ZEGGENSCHAP WETENSCH
  • [3] Abma T. A., 2007, LEREN LIJF IN PRESS
  • [4] Abma T. A., 2004, DIALOOG ONDERZOEK ME
  • [5] The practice and politics of responsive evaluation
    Abma, TA
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EVALUATION, 2006, 27 (01) : 31 - 43
  • [6] Patient participation in health research: Research with and for people with spinal cord injuries
    Abma, TA
    [J]. QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH, 2005, 15 (10) : 1310 - 1328
  • [7] Patients as partners in a health research agenda setting - The feasibility of a participatory methodology
    Abma, Tineke A.
    [J]. EVALUATION & THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS, 2006, 29 (04) : 424 - 439
  • [8] Patient involvement in research programming and implementation A responsive evaluation of the Dialogue Model for research agenda setting
    Abma, Tineke A.
    Pittens, Carina A. C. M.
    Visse, Merel
    Elberse, Janneke E.
    Broerse, Jacqueline E. W.
    [J]. HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, 2015, 18 (06) : 2449 - 2464
  • [9] Patient participation as dialogue: setting research agendas
    Abma, Tineke A.
    Broerse, Jacqueline E. W.
    [J]. HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, 2010, 13 (02) : 160 - 173
  • [10] Patients as Partners in Responsive Research: Methodological Notions for Collaborations in Mixed Research Teams
    Abma, Tineke A.
    Nierse, Christi J.
    Widdershoven, Guy A. M.
    [J]. QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH, 2009, 19 (03) : 401 - 415