IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v49y2022i5p751-764..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Supporting health researchers to realize meaningful patient involvement in research: Exploring researchers’ experiences and needs
[New Requirements for Patient and Public Involvement Statements in BMJ Open]

Author

Listed:
  • Simone Harmsen
  • Carina A C M Pittens
  • Eva Vroonland
  • Annemiek J M L van Rensen
  • Jacqueline E W Broerse

Abstract

Involving patients in health research requires a new way of working for all stakeholders involved, including researchers. This research aimed (1) to gain deeper insight into the experiences and needs of researchers regarding meaningful patient involvement and (2) to incorporate these insights into an online tool. This was done in a transdisciplinary research process, including three focus group discussions and three test sessions. We used the Social Cognitive Theory in the analysis process to reflect on how the tool addresses the complex personal, behavioural, and environmental factors that shape researchers’ experiences and needs. Identified factors were categorized into three themes: added value, perceived difficulty and patient-researcher role patterns. A tool was developed that addresses these factors, aiming to stimulate meaningful involvement by encouraging (self)reflection, experimentation, and learning-by-doing. It provides one element in a bigger systems approach to further stimulate patient involvement.

Suggested Citation

  • Simone Harmsen & Carina A C M Pittens & Eva Vroonland & Annemiek J M L van Rensen & Jacqueline E W Broerse, 2022. "Supporting health researchers to realize meaningful patient involvement in research: Exploring researchers’ experiences and needs [New Requirements for Patient and Public Involvement Statements in ," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(5), pages 751-764.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:49:y:2022:i:5:p:751-764.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scac024
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Oliver, Kathryn & Everett, Martin & Verma, Arpana & de Vocht, Frank, 2012. "The human factor: Re-organisations in public health policy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 97-103.
    2. Kathryn Oliver & Warren Pearce, 2017. "Three lessons from evidence-based medicine and policy: increase transparency, balance inputs and understand power," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-7, December.
    3. Carina A. C. M. Pittens & Janneke E. Elberse & Merel Visse & Tineke A. Abma & Jacqueline E. W. Broerse, 2014. "Research agendas involving patients: Factors that facilitate or impede translation of patients’ perspectives in programming and implementation," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(6), pages 809-820.
    4. Schuitmaker, Tjerk Jan, 2012. "Identifying and unravelling persistent problems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 79(6), pages 1021-1031.
    5. Elizabeth Manafò & Lisa Petermann & Virginia Vandall-Walker & Ping Mason-Lai, 2018. "Patient and public engagement in priority setting: A systematic rapid review of the literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-18, March.
    6. 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.
    7. James Maccarthy & Suzanne Guerin & Anthony G Wilson & Emma R Dorris, 2019. "Facilitating public and patient involvement in basic and preclinical health research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-16, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Barbara Groot & Annyk Haveman & Mireille Buree & Ruud van Zuijlen & Juliette van Zuijlen & Tineke Abma, 2022. "What Patients Prioritize for Research to Improve Their Lives and How Their Priorities Get Dismissed again," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-15, February.
    2. Avelino, Flor & Wittmayer, Julia M. & Pel, Bonno & Weaver, Paul & Dumitru, Adina & Haxeltine, Alex & Kemp, René & Jørgensen, Michael S. & Bauler, Tom & Ruijsink, Saskia & O'Riordan, Tim, 2019. "Transformative social innovation and (dis)empowerment," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 195-206.
    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. Markard, Jochen & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Analysis of complementarities: Framework and examples from the energy transition," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 63-75.
    6. Kathryn Oliver & Annette Boaz, 2019. "Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-10, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Lee, Carmen Kar Hang & Tse, Ying Kei & Ho, G.T.S. & Chung, S.H., 2021. "Uncovering insights from healthcare archives to improve operations: An association analysis for cervical cancer screening," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    9. Mohd Ghouse Ahmad Ghaus & Tuan Hairulnizam Tuan Kamauzaman & Mohd Noor Norhayati, 2021. "Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Evidence-Based Medicine among Emergency Doctors in Kelantan, Malaysia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-14, October.
    10. Iris Wanzenböck & Koen Frenken, 2018. "The subsidiarity principle: Turning challenge-oriented innovation policy on its head," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1806, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jan 2018.
    11. Iris Wanzenböck & Joeri H Wesseling & Koen Frenken & Marko P Hekkert & K Matthias Weber, 0. "A framework for mission-oriented innovation policy: Alternative pathways through the problem–solution space," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 47(4), pages 474-489.
    12. Markus M. Bugge & Teis Hansen & Antje Klitkou, 2016. "What Is the Bioeconomy? A Review of the Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-22, 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. Elzen, Boelie & Bos, Bram, 2019. "The RIO approach: Design and anchoring of sustainable animal husbandry systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 141-152.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Florian Hofmann & Melanie Jaeger‐Erben, 2020. "Organizational transition management of circular business model innovations," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 2770-2788, September.
    18. Yongjin Choi & Ashley M. Fox & Jennifer Dodge, 2022. "What counts? Policy evidence in public hearing testimonies: the case of single-payer healthcare in New York State," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(4), pages 631-660, December.
    19. Rojatz, Daniela & Forster, Rudolf, 2017. "Self-help organisations as patient representatives in health care and policy decision-making," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(10), pages 1047-1052.
    20. Kathryn Oliver & Warren Pearce, 2017. "Three lessons from evidence-based medicine and policy: increase transparency, balance inputs and understand power," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-7, December.

    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:49:y:2022:i:5:p:751-764.. 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: 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.