Development of a standard form for assessing research grant applications from the perspective of patients

被引:3
作者
De Wit M. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Teunissen T. [1 ,5 ]
Van Houtum L. [3 ,4 ]
Weide M. [3 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Department of Medical Humanities, Amsterdam Public Health (APH), VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam
[2] Stichting Tools2use, Amsterdam
[3] Dutch Association of Health Care Funds (SGF), Amersfoort
[4] Dutch Diabetes Research Foundation (Diabetes Fonds), Amersfoort
[5] Lung Foundation Netherlands (Longfonds), Amersfoort
关键词
Patient engagement; Patient involvement; Patient participation; Patient reviewers; Research grants assessment;
D O I
10.1186/s40900-018-0112-4
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Health-research funding organizations are increasingly involving patient representatives in the assessment of grant applications. However, there is no consensus on an appropriate scope or definition of the patient perspective and the eligibility of potential patient reviewers to take on this role. The aim of our study is to develop a consensus-based template for patient reviewers to assess research grant applications from the patients’ perspective. We also defined a glossary of terms and definitions to help the patient reviewers in their assessment role. Methods: Together with members of the Dutch Association of Health Care Funds (SGF) we developed an assessment form for patient reviewers following constant comparative analysis of existing review forms, a survey among all stakeholders, testing in three pilot training sessions, and a structured consensus process. Results: A small SGF working group collected and analysed 20 patient assessment forms, used by 12 health foundations and one patient organization. One systematic literature review was included. By comparing and discussing items and assessment categories in subsequent workshops, a first template form was developed. This version was electronically distributed among the members of 10 patient panels of whom 67 patient reviewers filled in the survey. A second version was then presented at a final working group meeting where consensus was reached about a template with 12 categories covering 41 items important for patients. A brochure for patient reviewers, a guide for panel coordinators and a glossary were developed to accompany future implementation of the template. Conclusions: A template for patient reviewers to assess research grant applications is now available, based on the consensus of 21 Dutch health foundations. © The Author(s) 2018.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]  
Frank L., Et al., Conceptual and practical foundations of patient engagement in research at the patient-centered outcomes research institute, Qual Life Res, 24, 5, pp. 1033-1041, (2015)
[2]  
Caeyers N., De Wit M.P.T., Patient Involvement in Research. a Way to Success. the Reference Cards Explained, (2013)
[3]  
Guide for BMJ Patient Reviewers, (2018)
[4]  
Teunissen G.J., Et al., Structuring patient advocates’ appraisal and evaluation of health research and quality of care, J Particip Med, 5, (2013)
[5]  
Teunissen T., Values and criteria of people with a chronic illness or disability. Strengthening the voice of their representatives in the health debate and the decision making process., Amsterdam: Metamedica, EMGO+2014, (2014)
[6]  
Hashem F., Calnan M., Brown P., Decision making in NICE single technological appraisals: How does NICE incorporate patient perspectives?, Health Expect, 21, pp. 128-137, (2018)
[7]  
De Wit M., Et al., Requirements for successful patient participation in scientific research [translation of: Voorwaarden voor succesvolle betrokkenheid van patiënten bij medisch wetenschappelijk onderzoek], Tijdschr Gezondheidsr, 94, 3, pp. 92-102, (2016)
[8]  
Teunissen T., Et al., Patient issues in health research and quality of care: An inventory and data synthesis, Health Expect, 16, 4, pp. 308-322, (2013)
[9]  
Glaser B.G., Strauss A.L., The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, (1967)
[10]  
Groot B., (2016)