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
. 2011 Sep;14(3):225-39.
doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00647.x. Epub 2010 Dec 22.

Patient-expert partnerships in research: how to stimulate inclusion of patient perspectives

Affiliations

Patient-expert partnerships in research: how to stimulate inclusion of patient perspectives

Janneke E Elberse et al. Health Expect. 2011 Sep.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To gain more insight into exclusion mechanisms and inclusion strategies in patient-expert partnerships. BACKGROUND Patient participation in health research, on the level of 'partnerships with experts' is a growing phenomenon. However, little research is conducted whether exclusion mechanisms take place and to what extent patients' perspectives are included in the final outcomes of these partnerships. Case study A dialogue meeting attended by experts, patients and patient representatives to develop a joint research agenda. Different inclusion strategies were applied during the dialogue meeting to avoid possible exclusion. METHOD Data were collected by the means of audio and video recordings, observations, document analysis and evaluative interviews. The data are clustered using a framework that divides exclusion mechanisms in three categories: circumstances, behaviour and verbal communication. The data are analysed focusing on the experiences of participants, observation of occurrence of exclusion and difference between input and outcome of the dialogue meeting. RESULTS The circumstances of the dialogue and the behaviour of the participants were experienced as mainly inclusive. Some exclusion was observed particularly with respect to verbal communication. The input of the patients was less visible in the outcome of the dialogue meeting compared to the input of the experts. CONCLUSION This case study reveals that exclusion of patients' perspective occurred during a dialogue meeting with experts, despite the fact that inclusion strategies were used and patients experienced the dialogue meeting as inclusive. To realize a more effective patient-expert partnership, more attention should be paid to the application of some additional inclusion strategies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Epstein S. Impure Science; AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1996. - PubMed
    1. Loukanova S, Bridges J. Empowerment in medicine: an analysis of publication trends 1980–2005. Central European Journal of Medicine, 2008; 3: 105–110.
    1. Williamson C. The patient movement as an emancipation movement. Health Expectations, 2008; 11: 102–112. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chopyak J, Levesque P. Public participation in science and technology decision making: trends for the future. Technology in Society, 2002; 24: 155–166.
    1. Irwin A. Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science, 2001; 10: 1–18.

Publication types