Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31720008›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2019

Patient participation in research funding: an overview of when, why and how amongst Dutch health funds.

Willemijn M den Oudendammer, Jacquelien Noordhoek, Rebecca Y Abma-Schouten, Lieke van Houtum, Jacqueline E W Broerse, Christine W M Dedding

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 · 2024
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Willemijn M den Oudendammer1Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jacquelien Noordhoek2Nederlandse Cystic Fibrosis Stichting, Dr. A Schweitzerweg 3, 3744 MG Baarn, The Netherlands.
Rebecca Y Abma-SchoutenNederlandse Hartstichting, Prinses Catharina-Amaliastraat 10, 2496 XD Den Haag, The Netherlands.
Lieke van Houtum4Nederlands Diabetes Fonds, Stationsplein 139, 3818 LE Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Jacqueline E W Broerse1Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Christine W M Dedding5Medical Humanities, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1089a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLDutch Diabetes Research Foundation · NLHartstichting · NLNederlandse Cystic Fibrosis Stichting · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Health fundsHealth-related research fundingPatient inclusionPatient involvementPatient participationResearch-funding agenciesResearch funding processShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID31720008
PMCPMC6844041
OpenAlexW2988761029

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.