ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2019
Patient participation in research funding: an overview of when, why and how amongst Dutch health funds.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Promising Patient-Engagement Practices Used by National Research Networks at the US Veterans Health Administration: Perspectives of Veterans, Staff, and Research Leaders.Learning health systems · 2026Article
- Developing more inclusive approaches to animal research and patient involvement.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2025Article
- Participant engagement and involvement in longitudinal cohort studies: qualitative insights from a selection of pregnancy and birth, twin, and family-based population cohort studies.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Training and peer-group coaching for pairs of researchers and patient representatives to support continuous two-way learning.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- The Development of Principles for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Preclinical Spinal Cord Research: A Modified Delphi Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Patient engagement in a Canadian health research funding institute: implementation and impact.BMJ open · 2024Review
- Why publish? An interview study exploring patient innovators' reasons for and experiences of scientific publishing.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Reporting of equity in observational epidemiology: A methodological review.Journal of global health · 2024Review
- Challenges to ethical public engagement in research funding: a perspective from practice.Open research Europe · 2024Article
- Co-creation of a patient engagement strategy in cancer research funding.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient participation in decision-making on health-related research has gained ground. Nineteen Dutch health-related research-funding organisations (HFs) have taken up the challenge to include patients in their funding process. A 'Patient participation (PP) advisory team' was set-up, with HF-representatives and patient advocates, who together initiated this study. We provide an overview of
methodsA qualitative research design was used. Data was gathered by questionnaires (
resultsThree stages can be identified in the funding process in which HFs carry out PP activities: (1) strategic decision-making about focus of research (e.g. shared research agendas); (2) call for and receipt of research proposals (e.g. mandatory inclusion of letter of recommendation from patient organisation); (3) decision-making about the funding of research proposals (e.g. patients reside in a patient panel to co-review research proposals). Main challenges identified to carry out PP activities include: how to accommodate diversity of the patient body (mainly encountered in stage 1 and 3); to what extent should patients receive training to successfully participate (mainly encountered in stage 1 and 3); and who is responsible for patient-researcher dialogues (mainly encountered in stage 1 and 2). All nineteen HFs agree that patients should be included in at least one stage of the funding process for health-related research.
conclusionFurther broadening and optimising patient involvement is still needed. The proposed solutions to the identified challenges could serve as inspiration for national and international research funding foundations that aim to structurally include patients in their funding process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.