|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 29, No. 4,
424-439 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0163278706293406
Patients as Partners in a Health Research Agenda Setting
The Feasibility of a Participatory Methodology
Tineke A. Abma
University of Maastricht
This article deals with the participation of patients in setting the agenda of health research that potentially directly affects their lives. The focus is on the communication problems encountered between lay people and medical professionals in developing a joint research agenda. The author argues that a participatory methodology can address these problems and thereby give patients "a say" in the types of health research that have the greatest chance of affecting them personally. The article uses a case example of people with spinal cord injuries participating in research to support the importance and value of patient participation. The case example also helps to rethink appropriate methodologies or at least to modify existing approaches by paying more attention to required social conditions, diversity, and the life world of patients to foster meaningful participation.
Key Words: dialogue • conceptualizations of participation • experiential knowledge • patient participation • participatory methodologies
References
- Aakster, C. W. (1999). Patiëntenperspectief in onderzoek [Patients' perspectives in research]. Rapport ten behoeve van de gelijknamige Tijdelijke Projectgroep van ZON. Den Haag: Zorg Onderzoek Nederland.
- Abma, T. A., (1998). Storytelling as inquiry in a mental hospital. Qualitative Health Research, 8(6), 821-838.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Abma, T. A. (2001). Reflexive dialogues: A story about the development of injury prevention in two performing art schools, Evaluation, 7(2), 238-252.[Abstract]
- Abma, T. A., & Widdershoven, W.A.M. (2005). Sharing stories, narrative and dialogue in responsive nursing evaluation. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 28(1), 90-109.
- Bagseven, G., Haster, M., Isken, L., Kok, M., Van der Poll, E., & et al. (2002). De keuze aan de patiënt. Patiëntenperspectief in Biomedisch Onderzoek [Giving the patient a choice. Patients' perspectives in biomedical research]. Rapport van de Vrije Universiteit in opdracht van de CG-Raad.
- Balch, G. I., & Mertens, D. M. (1999). Focus group design and group dynamics: Lessons from the deaf and hard of hearing participants. American Journal of Evaluation, 20(2), 265-277.[Abstract]
- Blume, S., & Catshoek, G. (2001). Patiëntenperspectief in onderzoek. Mogelijke strategieën [Patients perspectives in research. Possible strategies]. Utrecht: Patienten Praktijk.
- Boog, B., Coenen, H., & Keune, L. (2001). Action research: Empowerment and reflection. Tilburg: Dutch University Press.
- Caron-Flinterman, J., Broerse, J.E.W., & Bunders, J.F.G. (2005). The experiential knowledge of patients: A new resource for biomedical research? Social Science and Medicine, 60, 2572-2584.
- Caron-Flinterman, J. F., Broerse, J.E.W., Teerling, J., & Bunders, J.F.G. (2005). Patients' priorities concerning health research: The case of Asthma and COPD research in the Netherlands. Health Expectations, 8, 253-263.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Cousins, J. B. (1995). Participatory evaluation: Enhancing evaluation use and organizational learning capacity. The Evaluation Exchange, 1(3/4). Retrieved September 1, 2006, from http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/eval/issue2/theory.html
- Cousins, J. B., & Whitmore, E. (1998). Framing participatory evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 80, 5-23.
- Fetterman, D. (1994). Empowerment evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 15, 1-16.
- Flinterman, J. F., Teclemariam-Mesbah, R., Broerse, J.E.W., & Bunders, J.F.G. (2001). Transdisciplinarity: The new challenge for biomedical research. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 21(4), 253-266.[Abstract]
- Frank, A. W. (1995). The wounded storyteller. Chicago/London: Chicago Univerisity Press.
- Gill, C. J. (1999). Invisibility ubiquity: The surprising relevance of disability issues in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 20(2), 279-287.[ISI]
- Goudriaan, G., & Kleingeld, P. (2001). Kloof tussen onderzoekers en patiënten overbruggen. Aandacht voor gebruikersperspectief in onderzoek [Bridging the gap between researchers and patients. Attention for the users' perspectives in research]. Versie; 3: 4-11.
- Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (2000). Reconstructing the relationship between universities and society through action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 85-106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Greene, J. C. (1997). Participatory evaluation. In L. Mabry (Ed.), Evaluation and the postmodern dilemma. Advances in program evaluation (vol. 3, pp. 171-189). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
- Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
- Hunter, K. M. (1991). Doctor's stories: The narrative structure of medical knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Kleinman, A. (1995). Writing at the margin. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Klop, R., van Kammen, J., & van Eck, E. (2004). Patiënten doen mee bij ZonMw. Medische Antropologie, 16(1), 5-20.
- Lee, B. (1999). The implications of diversity and disability for evaluation practice: Commentary on Gill. American Journal of Evaluation, 20(2), 289-293.[ISI]
- Lincoln, Y. S. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
- Lieblich, A., Tuval-Mashiach, R., & Zilber, T. (1998). Narrative analysis, reading, analysis and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Madriz, E. (2000). Focus groups in feminist research. In N. K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 835-850). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Meadows, L. M., & Morse, J. M. (2001). Constructing evidence within a qualitative project. In J. M. Morse, J. M. Swanson, & A. J. Kuzel (Eds.), The nature of qualitative evidence (pp. 187-201). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- McKie, L. (2003). Rhetorical spaces: Participation and pragmatism in the evaluation of community health work. Evaluation, 9(3), 307-324.[Abstract]
- Mertens, D. M. (2002). The evaluator's role in the transformative context. In K. E. Ryan & T. A. Schwandt (Eds.), Exploring evaluator role and identity, evaluation and society (pp. 103-117). Greenwich, CT: IAP.
- Mishler, E. J. (1984). The discourse of medicine. Norwood, MA: Ablex.
- Rabeharisoa, V. (2003). The struggle against neuromuscular diseases in France and the emergence of the "partnership model" of patient organisation. Social Science & Medicine, 57, 2127-2136.
- Ray, L., & Mayan, M. (2001). Who decides what counts as evidence? In J. M. Morse, J. M. Swanson, A. J. Kuzel (Eds.), The nature of evidence in qualitative research(chap. 3, pp. 50-73). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Reissman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis, Sage Qualitative Research Methods Series (no. 30). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
- Sussman, S., Valente, Th. W., Pentz, M. A., Rohrbach, L. A., & Skara, S. (In press). Translation in the health professions: Converting science into action. Evaluation & Health Professions.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
A. Tong, P. Sainsbury, S. M. Carter, B. Hall, D. C. Harris, R. G. Walker, C. M. Hawley, S. Chadban, and J. C. Craig
Patients' priorities for health research: focus group study of patients with chronic kidney disease
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant.,
April 29, 2008;
(2008)
gfn207v1.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
