Alpha 2.0
Login Register
» Articles » PMID: 20536537

Patient Participation As Dialogue: Setting Research Agendas

Overview
Journal Health Expect
Publisher Wiley
Specialty Public Health
Date 2010 Jun 12
PMID 20536537
Citations 107
Authors
Tineke A Abma
Jacqueline E W Broerse
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Collaboration with patients in healthcare and medical research is an emerging development. We aimed to develop a methodology for health research agenda setting processes grounded in the notion of participation as dialogue.

Methods: We conducted seven case studies between 2003 and 2007 to develop and validate a Dialogue Model for patient participation in health research agenda setting. The case studies related to spinal cord injury, neuromuscular diseases, renal failure, asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, burns, diabetes and intellectual disabilities.

Results: The Dialogue Model is grounded in participatory and interactive approaches and has been adjusted on the basis of pilot work. It has six phases: exploration; consultation; prioritization; integration; programming; and implementation. These phases are discussed and illustrated with a case description of research agenda setting relating to burns.

Conclusions: The dialogue model appeared relevant and feasible to structure the process of collaboration between stakeholders in several research agenda setting processes. The phase of consultation enables patients to develop their own voice and agenda, and prepares them for the broader collaboration with other stakeholder groups. Challenges include the stimulation of more permanent changes in research, and institutional transitions.

Citing Articles

Two-Eyed Seeing and other Indigenous perspectives for neuroscience.

Illes J, Perreault M, Bassil K, Bjaalie J, Taylor-Bragge R, Chneiweiss H Nature. 2025; 638(8049):58-68.

PMID: 39910384 DOI: 10.1038/s41586-024-08437-2.

Involving People With Lived Experience in Electronic Health Record Database Studies Reflections and Learning From the CHOOSE Study.

Cockcroft E, Bassi V, Mok P, Adams A, Claro A, Trafford A Health Expect. 2024; 27(6):e70131.

PMID: 39696974 PMC: 11655915. DOI: 10.1111/hex.70131.

Evaluating public and patient involvement in interventional research-A newly developed checklist (EPPIIC).

Pyne E, Joyce R, Dwyer C, Hynes S PLoS One. 2024; 19(11):e0301314.

PMID: 39499697 PMC: 11537402. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301314.

Patient engagement as a collaborative process in a large Dutch COVID-19 vaccination study (RECOVAC) - insight into the contribution of patient engagement and learnings for the future.

Vervoort J, Konijn W, Jansen D, Boersma C, de Zeeuw J, Ho-Dac-Pannekeet M Res Involv Engagem. 2024; 10(1):96.

PMID: 39272117 PMC: 11395945. DOI: 10.1186/s40900-024-00622-x.

Health and social care experience and research perception of different ethnic minority populations in the East Midlands, United Kingdom (REPRESENT study).

Ekezie W, Cassambai S, Czyznikowska B, Curtis F, OMahoney L, Willis A Health Expect. 2024; 27(1):e13944.

PMID: 39102736 PMC: 10733974. DOI: 10.1111/hex.13944.

References
1.
Abma T . Storytelling as inquiry in a mental hospital. Qual Health Res. 1999; 8(6):821-38. DOI: 10.1177/104973239800800608. View
2.
Cornwall A, Jewkes R . What is participatory research?. Soc Sci Med. 1995; 41(12):1667-76. DOI: 10.1016/0277-9536(95)00127-s. View
3.
Entwistle V, Calnan M, Dieppe P . Consumer involvement in setting the health services research agenda: persistent questions of value. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008; 13 Suppl 3:76-81. DOI: 10.1258/jhsrp.2008.007167. View
4.
Tritter J, Mccallum A . The snakes and ladders of user involvement: Moving beyond Arnstein. Health Policy. 2005; 76(2):156-68. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.05.008. View
5.
Gooberman-Hill R, Horwood J, Calnan M . Citizens' juries in planning research priorities: process, engagement and outcome. Health Expect. 2008; 11(3):272-81. PMC: 5060449. DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00502.x. View