Patient involvement in cardiovascular research: a qualitative impact evaluation.

Cardiovascular research Impact evaluation Impact on research Patient and public involvement Patient participation

Journal

Research involvement and engagement
ISSN: 2056-7529
Titre abrégé: Res Involv Engagem
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101708164

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2019
Historique:
received: 18 02 2019
accepted: 26 09 2019
entrez: 23 10 2019
pubmed: 23 10 2019
medline: 23 10 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Involving patients in scientific research has been shown to improve the relevance of the research, as well as its quality and applicability. Harteraad, the Dutch patient organization for people with cardiovascular diseases, has a Committee of Experienced Experts (patients) advising researchers on the content of grant proposals prior to submission. Until now, the impact of the committee's advice was unknown. This study, initiated by Harteraad, aimed to evaluate the impact of the provided advice on the content of grant proposals and investigate how to strengthen this impact. Fourteen grant proposals both prior to and after receiving the committee's advice were compared in order to analyse how the advice had been incorporated into the final proposal. Subsequently, 10 researchers who received the committee's advice were interviewed. Moreover, a focus group discussion was conducted with five committee members. Document analysis showed that almost 40% of the advice was incorporated in the final grant proposals. Researchers made several changes to their proposals, such as increasing the extent of patient involvement throughout the research, use of simpler language, and/or adding information on the consequences of an intervention for patients. Advice requiring fundamental changes in the research design was most often not incorporated. This finding was confirmed by the interviewees, although some stressed to use the committee's advice later on during the execution of the research. According to the interviewees and members of the committee, the impact of the committee's advice could be strengthened in several ways, including 1) improving training/education for researchers and the committee, 2) organizing dialogues between patients and researchers, 3) aligning perspectives between funding bodies and patient organizations on what is expected from researchers, 4) making it obligatory for the researchers to clarify how the patient's advice was incorporated, and 5) fostering researchers' internal motivation for involvement. Committee members have contributed to implementing these recommendations. The committee's advice has considerable impact on the content of grant proposals. However, effort is required to increase the value that is currently attributed to patient involvement, and to support researchers in the required organizational and cultural changes to meaningfully involve patients in research.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
Involving patients in scientific research has been shown to improve the relevance of the research, as well as its quality and applicability. Harteraad, the Dutch patient organization for people with cardiovascular diseases, has a Committee of Experienced Experts (patients) advising researchers on the content of grant proposals prior to submission. Until now, the impact of the committee's advice was unknown. This study, initiated by Harteraad, aimed to evaluate the impact of the provided advice on the content of grant proposals and investigate how to strengthen this impact.
METHODS METHODS
Fourteen grant proposals both prior to and after receiving the committee's advice were compared in order to analyse how the advice had been incorporated into the final proposal. Subsequently, 10 researchers who received the committee's advice were interviewed. Moreover, a focus group discussion was conducted with five committee members.
RESULTS RESULTS
Document analysis showed that almost 40% of the advice was incorporated in the final grant proposals. Researchers made several changes to their proposals, such as increasing the extent of patient involvement throughout the research, use of simpler language, and/or adding information on the consequences of an intervention for patients. Advice requiring fundamental changes in the research design was most often not incorporated. This finding was confirmed by the interviewees, although some stressed to use the committee's advice later on during the execution of the research. According to the interviewees and members of the committee, the impact of the committee's advice could be strengthened in several ways, including 1) improving training/education for researchers and the committee, 2) organizing dialogues between patients and researchers, 3) aligning perspectives between funding bodies and patient organizations on what is expected from researchers, 4) making it obligatory for the researchers to clarify how the patient's advice was incorporated, and 5) fostering researchers' internal motivation for involvement. Committee members have contributed to implementing these recommendations.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
The committee's advice has considerable impact on the content of grant proposals. However, effort is required to increase the value that is currently attributed to patient involvement, and to support researchers in the required organizational and cultural changes to meaningfully involve patients in research.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31636964
doi: 10.1186/s40900-019-0165-z
pii: 165
pmc: PMC6792256
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

29

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s). 2019.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Références

J Med Ethics. 2013 Mar;39(3):181-5
pubmed: 22267385
BMJ. 1999 Sep 18;319(7212):724-5
pubmed: 10487984
Soc Sci Med. 2013 Mar;80:24-30
pubmed: 23415588
Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277-88
pubmed: 16204405
Health Expect. 2018 Aug;21(4):752-763
pubmed: 29418053
BMJ. 2018 Jul 25;362:k3193
pubmed: 30045909
Mayo Clin Proc. 2010 Jan;85(1):53-62
pubmed: 20042562
BMJ. 2017 Aug 2;358:j3453
pubmed: 28768629
Health Policy. 2006 Apr;76(2):156-68
pubmed: 16006004
Health Expect. 2014 Feb;17(1):138-50
pubmed: 22070468
Res Involv Engagem. 2018 Jul 6;4:20
pubmed: 30002874
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011 Oct;27(4):391-9
pubmed: 22004782
Child Care Health Dev. 2017 Mar;43(2):298-306
pubmed: 27766678
Arthritis Rheum. 2006 Aug 15;55(4):676-80
pubmed: 16874772
J Med Ethics. 2013 Mar;39(3):186-7
pubmed: 23288267
Health Expect. 2014 Oct;17(5):637-50
pubmed: 22809132
Health Expect. 2010 Jun;13(2):160-73
pubmed: 20536537

Auteurs

Eva Vroonland (E)

Harteraad, Prinses Catharina-Amaliastraat 10, 2496 XD Den Haag, The Netherlands.

Inge Schalkers (I)

Harteraad, Prinses Catharina-Amaliastraat 10, 2496 XD Den Haag, The Netherlands.

Daphne Bloemkolk (D)

2De Hartstichting, Prinses Catharina-Amaliastraat 10, 2496 XD Den Haag, The Netherlands.

Christine Dedding (C)

Amsterdam UMC, De Boelelaan 1089a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Classifications MeSH