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
. 2015 Dec;18(6):2449-64.
doi: 10.1111/hex.12213. Epub 2014 May 30.

Patient involvement in research programming and implementation: A responsive evaluation of the Dialogue Model for research agenda setting

Tineke A Abma  1 , Carina A C M Pittens  2 , Merel Visse  1 , Janneke E Elberse  2 , Jacqueline E W Broerse  2
Affiliations

Patient involvement in research programming and implementation: A responsive evaluation of the Dialogue Model for research agenda setting

Tineke A Abma et al. Health Expect. 2015 Dec.

Abstract

Background: The Dialogue Model for research agenda-setting, involving multiple stakeholders including patients, was developed and validated in the Netherlands. However, there is little insight into whether and how patient involvement is sustained during the programming and implementation of research agendas.

Aim: To understand how the Dialogue Model can be optimised by focusing on programming and implementation, in order to stimulate the inclusion of (the perspectives of) patients in research.

Methods: A responsive evaluation of the programming and implementation phases of nine agenda-setting projects that had used the Dialogue Model for agenda-setting was conducted. Fifty-four semi-structured interviews were held with different stakeholders (patients, researchers, funding agencies). Three focus groups with patients, funding agencies and researchers (16 participants) were organized to validate the findings.

Results: Patient involvement in programming and implementation of the research agendas was limited. This was partly related to poor programming and implementation, partly to pitfalls in earlier phases of the agenda-setting. Optimization of the Dialogue Model is possible by attending to the nature of the agenda and its intended use in earlier phases. Attention should also be given to the ambassadors and intended users of agenda topics. Support is needed during programming and implementation to organize patient involvement and adapt organizational structures like review procedures. In all phases the attitude to patient involvement, stakeholder participation, especially of researchers, and formal and informal relationships between parties need to be addressed to build a strong relationship with a shared goal.

Conclusion: Patient involvement in agenda-setting is not automatically followed by patient involvement in programming and implementation. More attention should be paid, in earlier stages, to the attitude and engagement of researchers and funding agencies.

Keywords: Dialogue Model; priority setting; research agenda setting; research programming and implementation; responsive evaluation.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Stewart RJ, Caird J, Oliver K, Oliver S. Patients’ and clinicians’ research priorities. Health Expectations, 2011; 14: 439–448. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mitton C, Smith N, Peacock S, Evoy B, Abelson J. Public participation in health care priority setting: a scoping review. Health Policy, 2009; 91: 219–228. - PubMed
    1. Alliance JL. The James Lind Alliance Guidebook. Oxford: James Lind Alliance, 2010.
    1. Malcolm C, Knighting K, Forbat L, Kearney N. Prioritisation of future research topics for children's hospice care by its key stakeholders: a Delphi study. Palliative Medicine, 2009; 23: 398–405. - PubMed
    1. Owens C, Ley A, Aitken P. Do different stakeholder groups share mental health research priorities? A four‐arm Delphi study. Health Expectations, 2008; 11: 418–431. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources