Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Jun;13(2):160-73.
doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00549.x.

Patient participation as dialogue: setting research agendas

Affiliations

Patient participation as dialogue: setting research agendas

Tineke A Abma et al. Health Expect. 2010 Jun.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Blume S, Catshoek G. Patiëntenperspectief in onderzoek [Patients’ perspective in research]. Utrecht: PatientenPraktijk, 2001.
    1. Cayton H. Patients’ views on the priorities of research into Alzheimer’s disease. Patientview, Health and social campaigners’ network international, 2005: 24–26.
    1. Chalmers I. Nutteloos bewijs [Useless evidence] NRC Handelsblad 2006. An interview by Wim Kohler, 28 October, 2006.
    1. Ray L, Mayan M. Who decides what counts as evidence? Chapter 3 In: Morse JM, Swanson JM, Kuzel AJ. (eds) The Nature of Evidence in Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2001: 50–73.
    1. Stewart D. A patient talks about patient input into research. Patient view, Health and social campaigners’ network international, 2005: 21–22.

Publication types