Cargando…

Development of a standard form for assessing research grant applications from the perspective of patients

BACKGROUND: Health-research funding organizations are increasingly involving patient representatives in the assessment of grant applications. However, there is no consensus on an appropriate scope or definition of the patient perspective and the eligibility of potential patient reviewers to take on...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: de Wit, Maarten, Teunissen, Truus, van Houtum, Lieke, Weide, Margriet
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6120065/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30186624
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40900-018-0112-4
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Health-research funding organizations are increasingly involving patient representatives in the assessment of grant applications. However, there is no consensus on an appropriate scope or definition of the patient perspective and the eligibility of potential patient reviewers to take on this role. The aim of our study is to develop a consensus-based template for patient reviewers to assess research grant applications from the patients’ perspective. We also defined a glossary of terms and definitions to help the patient reviewers in their assessment role. METHODS: Together with members of the Dutch Association of Health Care Funds (SGF) we developed an assessment form for patient reviewers following constant comparative analysis of existing review forms, a survey among all stakeholders, testing in three pilot training sessions, and a structured consensus process. RESULTS: A small SGF working group collected and analysed 20 patient assessment forms, used by 12 health foundations and one patient organization. One systematic literature review was included. By comparing and discussing items and assessment categories in subsequent workshops, a first template form was developed. This version was electronically distributed among the members of 10 patient panels of whom 67 patient reviewers filled in the survey. A second version was then presented at a final working group meeting where consensus was reached about a template with 12 categories covering 41 items important for patients. A brochure for patient reviewers, a guide for panel coordinators and a glossary were developed to accompany future implementation of the template. CONCLUSIONS: A template for patient reviewers to assess research grant applications is now available, based on the consensus of 21 Dutch health foundations. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s40900-018-0112-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.