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
  • [31] Patient-expert partnerships in research: how to stimulate inclusion of patient perspectives
    Elberse, Janneke E.
    Caron-Flinterman, J. Francisca
    Broerse, Jacqueline E. W.
    [J]. HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, 2011, 14 (03) : 225 - 239
  • [32] Patient involvement in a scientific advisory process: Setting the research agenda for medical products
    Elberse, Janneke Elisabeth
    Pittens, Carina Anna Cornelia Maria
    Buning, Tjard de Cock
    Broerse, Jacqueline Elisabeth Willy
    [J]. HEALTH POLICY, 2012, 107 (2-3) : 231 - 242
  • [33] Identifying and prioritizing uncertainties: patient and clinician engagement in the identification of research questions
    Elwyn, Glyn
    Crowe, Sally
    Fenton, Mark
    Firkins, Lester
    Versnel, Jenny
    Walker, Samantha
    Cook, Ivor
    Holgate, Stephen
    Higgins, Bernard
    Gelder, Colin
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2010, 16 (03) : 627 - 631
  • [34] THE NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE - A RESEARCH TOOL FOR GENERAL-PRACTICE
    GALLAGHER, M
    HARES, T
    SPENCER, J
    BRADSHAW, C
    WEBB, I
    [J]. FAMILY PRACTICE, 1993, 10 (01) : 76 - 81
  • [35] Greene J.G., 2001, Evaluation, V7, P181, DOI DOI 10.1177/135638900100700203
  • [36] Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort?
    Irvin, RA
    Stansbury, J
    [J]. PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW, 2004, 64 (01) : 55 - 65
  • [37] James Lind Alliance, 2010, J LIND ALL GUID
  • [38] CONSENSUS METHODS FOR MEDICAL AND HEALTH-SERVICES RESEARCH
    JONES, J
    HUNTER, D
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1995, 311 (7001) : 376 - 380
  • [39] Patients' research priorities get funded
    Lloyd, Keith
    White, Jo
    Chalmers, Iain
    [J]. NATURE, 2012, 487 (7408) : 432 - 432
  • [40] Democratizing clinical research
    Lloyd, Keith
    White, Jo
    [J]. NATURE, 2011, 474 (7351) : 277 - 278