Cargando…

Patient involvement in cardiovascular research: a qualitative impact evaluation

BACKGROUND & 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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vroonland, Eva, Schalkers, Inge, Bloemkolk, Daphne, Dedding, Christine
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6792256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31636964
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40900-019-0165-z
_version_ 1783459111892942848
author Vroonland, Eva
Schalkers, Inge
Bloemkolk, Daphne
Dedding, Christine
author_facet Vroonland, Eva
Schalkers, Inge
Bloemkolk, Daphne
Dedding, Christine
author_sort Vroonland, Eva
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND & 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: 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: 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: 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6792256
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67922562019-10-21 Patient involvement in cardiovascular research: a qualitative impact evaluation Vroonland, Eva Schalkers, Inge Bloemkolk, Daphne Dedding, Christine Res Involv Engagem Research Article BACKGROUND & 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: 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: 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: 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. BioMed Central 2019-10-14 /pmc/articles/PMC6792256/ /pubmed/31636964 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40900-019-0165-z Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Vroonland, Eva
Schalkers, Inge
Bloemkolk, Daphne
Dedding, Christine
Patient involvement in cardiovascular research: a qualitative impact evaluation
title Patient involvement in cardiovascular research: a qualitative impact evaluation
title_full Patient involvement in cardiovascular research: a qualitative impact evaluation
title_fullStr Patient involvement in cardiovascular research: a qualitative impact evaluation
title_full_unstemmed Patient involvement in cardiovascular research: a qualitative impact evaluation
title_short Patient involvement in cardiovascular research: a qualitative impact evaluation
title_sort patient involvement in cardiovascular research: a qualitative impact evaluation
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6792256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31636964
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40900-019-0165-z
work_keys_str_mv AT vroonlandeva patientinvolvementincardiovascularresearchaqualitativeimpactevaluation
AT schalkersinge patientinvolvementincardiovascularresearchaqualitativeimpactevaluation
AT bloemkolkdaphne patientinvolvementincardiovascularresearchaqualitativeimpactevaluation
AT deddingchristine patientinvolvementincardiovascularresearchaqualitativeimpactevaluation