IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v33y2006i4p291-304.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder participation in health research agenda setting: the case of asthma and COPD research in the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • J Francisca Caron-Flinterman
  • Jacqueline E W Broerse
  • Julia Teerling
  • Melissa L Y van Alst
  • Simon Klaasen
  • L Edwin Swart
  • Joske F G Bunders

Abstract

Current methodologies for stakeholder participation in research agenda setting often fall short of effectiveness in terms of ensuring shareholders' influence. This article reports on a newly developed participation methodology, which was applied in an interactive agenda-setting project concerning research on asthma and coronary obstructive pulmonary disease. The effectiveness of this methodology was evaluated on both the participation process and its outcomes. The results suggest that the methodology used is rather effective with respect to the legitimacy and rationality of the process, the quality of the outcomes and the achievement of mutual learning. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:33:y:2006:i:4:p:291-304
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154306781778993
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    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. 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.
    3. Musvoto, Constansia & Mason, Nathaniel & Jovanovic, Nebo & Froebrich, Jochen & Tshovhote, Jane & Nemakhavhani, Mpho & Khabe, Themba, 2015. "Applying a transdisciplinary process to define a research agenda in a smallholder irrigated farming system in South Africa," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 39-50.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:scippl:v:33:y:2006:i:4:p:291-304. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.