This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Public Involvement in Setting a National Research Agenda: A Mixed Methods Evaluation

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Sandy Oliver (Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK)
David G. Armes (Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK)
Gill Gyte (Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK)
Abstract

Background: A growing body of literature supports the inclusion of patients, other service users, and the wider public in guiding health technology assessment, particularly in relation to interventions and outcomes for evaluative studies. Objective: To describe the input and influence of public involvement in setting the agenda for a national research program. Methods: The data source was the commissioned research of the UK National Health Service Health Technology Assessment (HTA) program, 1999-2004. The study consisted of a mixed methods evaluation employing document analyses, key informant interviews, and structured non-participant observations. Routine management records of the HTA program were examined for public influence on research topics. The nature and influence of contributions from the public were compared with those of other experts. Structured observations of advisory panel meetings investigated how discussion and decisions related to patient and public perspectives and how panel members responded to public input to the program. Semi-structured interviews gathered the perceptions of staff and advisory panel members. Results: The public provided unique contributions both as external experts and as panel members. The value and influence of many of these contributions were acknowledged by staff and panel members. Input from external public experts was least where recruitment was passive (through a website) and where contributions were required in a research question format that may have been unfamiliar to non-researchers. However, public influence at this stage was at least of the same order as that of professional suggestions. Input was most where recruitment effort was greater, where contributions could be made in an open format, and where the responsibility for integrating these into a research question format lay with research program staff. Public experts contributing at this stage often influenced research plans. Their contributions resulted in some important changes, including making patient and carer perspectives explicit, changing the focus of the research, adding new outcomes, refuting the need for the planned research, providing up-to-date prevalence data, and providing plain English background text. At their best, public members of advisory panels were seen as providing useful comment and encouraging greater sensitivity to patient perspectives among other panel members. At their worst, they were seen as lobbying for particular patient groups. Conclusions: Public involvement has influenced decisions about research commissioned by the HTA program with only relatively minor changes to the procedures and resources for managing the program required. This results in outcomes research that incorporates patient and public preferences and values, and that is freely available for evidence-informed health services.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://thepatient.adisonline.com/pt/re/tpt/pdfhandler.01312067-200902030-00005.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: Pay per view
File URL: http://thepatient.adisonline.com/pt/re/tpt/fulltext.01312067-200902030-00005.htm
File Format: text/html
File Function:
Download Restriction: Pay per view

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Publisher Info
Article provided by Wolters Kluwer Health | Adis in its journal The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.

Volume (Year): 2 (2009)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
Pages: 179-190
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:wkh:thepat:v:2:y:2009:i:3:p:179-190

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://thepatient.adisonline.com/

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Remco Bouckaert).

Related research
Keywords:

Find related papers by JEL classification:
C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods
D - Microeconomics
I - Health, Education, and Welfare
Z - Other Special Topics
I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health
I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other
I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? A few items listed on IDEAS are over 2000 years old!

This page was last updated on 2009-11-13.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.