IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v69y2009i6p920-925.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient involvement in health research: A contribution to a systematic review on the effectiveness of treatments for degenerative ataxias

Author

Listed:
  • Serrano-Aguilar, P.
  • Trujillo-Martín, M.M.
  • Ramos-Goñi, J.M.
  • Mahtani-Chugani, V.
  • Perestelo-Pérez, L.
  • Posada-de la Paz, M.

Abstract

This study aims to incorporate patients' perspective in the design of a systematic review of scientific literature on the effectiveness of degenerative ataxias (DA) treatments. 53 patients with DA from different regions of Spain were consulted using the Delphi method, with three rounds via e-mail. In the first round, obtained information was on treatments used and relevant self-perceived health problems related to DA. The following two rounds were used to prioritize and achieve a consensus on the answers. The participation rate was 100% for all rounds. The most relevant self-perceived health problems were limitations in activities of daily living (ADL), visual and auditory problems and diminished self-esteem. The bibliographic search for the systematic review was enriched by these patient contributions. No study offered information on treatment effectiveness for the following problems prioritized by patients: ADL, social relationships, disease acceptance and quality of life. Thus some of the self-perceived DA-related health problems identified by the patients have never been investigated and should be considered to improve future research projects which should be adapted to meet patients' needs. Effective participation of patients can extend the value of systematic reviews to ensure they respond to both clinicians' information needs and patients' expectations.

Suggested Citation

  • Serrano-Aguilar, P. & Trujillo-Martín, M.M. & Ramos-Goñi, J.M. & Mahtani-Chugani, V. & Perestelo-Pérez, L. & Posada-de la Paz, M., 2009. "Patient involvement in health research: A contribution to a systematic review on the effectiveness of treatments for degenerative ataxias," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 920-925, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:69:y:2009:i:6:p:920-925
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(09)00440-7
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Boote, Jonathan & Telford, Rosemary & Cooper, Cindy, 2002. "Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 213-236, August.
    2. Pivik, Jayne & Rode, Elisabeth & Ward, Christopher, 2004. "A consumer involvement model for health technology assessment in Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 253-268, August.
    3. J Francisca Caron-Flinterman & Jacqueline E W Broerse & Julia Teerling & Melissa L Y van Alst & Simon Klaasen & L Edwin Swart & Joske F G Bunders, 2006. "Stakeholder participation in health research agenda setting: the case of asthma and COPD research in the Netherlands," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(4), pages 291-304, May.
    4. Caron-Flinterman, J. Francisca & Broerse, Jacqueline E.W. & Bunders, Joske F.G., 2005. "The experiential knowledge of patients: a new resource for biomedical research?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(11), pages 2575-2584, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joan Carlini & Rachel Muir & Annette McLaren-Kennedy & Laurie Grealish, 2023. "Researcher Perceptions of Involving Consumers in Health Research in Australia: A Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(10), pages 1-16, May.
    2. Linertová, Renata & Serrano-Aguilar, Pedro & Posada-de-la-Paz, Manuel & Hens-Pérez, Manuel & Kanavos, Panos & Taruscio, Domenica & Schieppati, Arrigo & Stefanov, Rumen & Péntek, Márta & Delgado, Claud, 2012. "Delphi approach to select rare diseases for a European representative survey. The BURQOL-RD study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 19-26.
    3. Bullinger, Angelika C. & Rass, Matthias & Adamczyk, Sabrina & Moeslein, Kathrin M. & Sohn, Stefan, 2012. "Open innovation in health care: Analysis of an open health platform," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 165-175.
    4. Boote, Jonathan & Baird, Wendy & Sutton, Anthea, 2011. "Public involvement in the systematic review process in health and social care: A narrative review of case examples," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 105-116.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elberse, Janneke Elisabeth & Pittens, Carina Anna Cornelia Maria & de Cock Buning, Tjard & Broerse, Jacqueline Elisabeth Willy, 2012. "Patient involvement in a scientific advisory process: Setting the research agenda for medical products," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 231-242.
    2. Goven, Joanna, 2008. "Assessing genetic testing: Who are the "lay experts"?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 1-18, January.
    3. Ziewitz, Malte, 2017. "Experience in action: Moderating care in web-based patient feedback," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 99-108.
    4. Stockl, Andrea, 2007. "Complex syndromes, ambivalent diagnosis, and existential uncertainty: The case of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(7), pages 1549-1559, October.
    5. Bukola Mary Ibitoye & Bernie Garrett & Manon Ranger & Jennifer Stinson, 2023. "Conducting Patient-Oriented Research in Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(1), pages 19-29, January.
    6. Swaans, Kees & Broerse, Jacqueline & Meincke, Maylin & Mudhara, Maxwell & Bunders, Joske, 2009. "Promoting food security and well-being among poor and HIV/AIDS affected households: Lessons from an interactive and integrated approach," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 31-42, February.
    7. Klenk, Nicole L. & Hickey, Gordon M., 2011. "A virtual and anonymous, deliberative and analytic participation process for planning and evaluation: The Concept Mapping Policy Delphi," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 152-165, January.
    8. Miguel García-Martín & Carmen Amezcua-Prieto & Bassel H Al Wattar & Jan Stener Jørgensen & Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas & Khalid Saeed Khan, 2020. "Patient and Public Involvement in Sexual and Reproductive Health: Time to Properly Integrate Citizen’s Input into Science," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-12, October.
    9. Augustine Adomah-Afari & Theophilus Maloreh-Nyamekye, 2019. "Enhancing Patient Satisfaction - Relationship Marketing Strategies of Two Specialist Hospitals in Accra, Ghana," International Journal of Social and Administrative Sciences, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 4(2), pages 213-231, June.
    10. Meng, Jie & Layton, Roger & Huang, Yimin, 2016. "Why do some consumers shop in this pharmacy? A cross-check of vulnerable characteristics and store types," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 116-130.
    11. Josie Messina & David Grainger, 2012. "A Pilot Study to Identify Areas for Further Improvements in Patient and Public Involvement in Health Technology Assessments for Medicines," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(3), pages 199-211, September.
    12. Bombard, Yvonne & Abelson, Julia & Simeonov, Dorina & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2011. "Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: A participatory approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 135-144, July.
    13. Alexandre Trigo, 2016. "Innovation in the Era of Experience: The Changing Role of Users in Healthcare Innovation," Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, Fundacja Upowszechniająca Wiedzę i Naukę "Cognitione", vol. 12(2), pages 29-51.
    14. Allen, Dawn & Wainwright, Megan & Hutchinson, Thomas, 2011. "'Non-compliance' as illness management: Hemodialysis patients' descriptions of adversarial patient-clinician interactions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 129-134, July.
    15. O'Donnell, Maire & Entwistle, Vikki, 2004. "Consumer involvement in decisions about what health-related research is funded," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 281-290, December.
    16. Pivik, Jayne & Rode, Elisabeth & Ward, Christopher, 2004. "A consumer involvement model for health technology assessment in Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 253-268, August.
    17. Marika Burda & Frans Horst & Marjan Akker & Alexander Stork & Ilse Mesters & Silvia Bours & Maarten Ploeg & Bjorn Winkens & Johannes Knottnerus, 2012. "Harvesting Experiential Expertise to Support Safe Driving for People with Diabetes Mellitus," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(4), pages 251-264, December.
    18. Abelson, Julia & Forest, Pierre-Gerlier & Eyles, John & Casebeer, Ann & Martin, Elisabeth & Mackean, Gail, 2007. "Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment: Results from a Canadian comparative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(10), pages 2115-2128, May.
    19. Abelson, Julia & Giacomini, Mita & Lehoux, Pascale & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2007. "Bringing `the public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 37-50, June.
    20. Roelofsen, Anneloes & Boon, Wouter P.C. & Kloet, Roy R. & Broerse, Jacqueline E.W., 2011. "Stakeholder interaction within research consortia on emerging technologies: Learning how and what?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 341-354, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:69:y:2009:i:6:p:920-925. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.