1,720,975 research outputs found
Knowledge co-production in health research, policy and care practice
Get PDFBroerse, J.E.W. [Promotor
How to set a research agenda for a diverse and divided patient population: A qualitative study to assess the research needs of people with a visual impairment or ophthalmological disease
No full textBackground Patient involvement in research agenda setting has been studied in various initiatives. However, little insight is available on effective involvement strategies for both vulnerable, and for highly diverse and divided patient populations. Objective To develop a research agenda for people with visual impairments or ophthalmological diseases, taking into account their specific needs for optimal involvement and the heterogenic nature of the patient population. Methods The Dialogue Model was used, comprising the following four phases: exploration, consultation, prioritization and implementation. Eight homogenous focusgroups were organized and several additional interviews were conducted during the consultation phase. During the prioritization phase, medical research topics and societal and rehabilitation research topics were ranked in two questionnaires. Several strategies were applied to optimize the involvement of visually impaired participants. Results To unify the diverse patient population, the topics of the research agendas were categorized under general themes (e.g. regenerative medicine, cause and mechanism of disease, and orientation and mobility). Some topics were formulated for specific ophthalmological diseases; however, during the consultation phase a substantive overlap in research topics was identified between the different patient groups. Additionally, by correlating the results of the data to the ophthalmological disease and severity of the impairment justice was done to the diversity of the needs of the patient groups. Discussion This research will provide insight in strategies to set up a shared research agenda from the perspective of a highly diverse and divided patient population
Research agendas involving patients: Factors that facilitate or impede translation of patients’ perspectives in programming and implementation
No full textPatients are increasingly involved in agenda setting in health research policy, but little is known about whether or not patients' topics are translated into a funding programme and taken up by researchers. A qualitative evaluation of nine multi-stakeholder agenda-setting projects in the Netherlands was conducted. Document study and 54 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders were undertaken. Three strategies for the translation of research agendas into research programmes were identified: first, one-on-one translation; second, agendas were used to adapt general policies; and third, no translation. A number of factors, facilitating or impeding this translation, were identified, relating to the context or the process of programming and implementation. Context appeared to be crucial: positive attitudes towards patient involvement, good relations between stakeholders and supportive characteristics of organizations. Patient involvement was rarely sustained during programming and implementation. These insights contribute to more effective procedures for programming and implementing research agendas
Optimalisatie van patientenparticipatie in richtlijnontwikkeling en in het bijzonder in richtlijnwerkgroepen.
No full textOnderzoeksagenda dementie: behoeften van mensen met dementie, Mantelzorgers, Onderzoekers en Burgers
No full text
Patientenparticipatie bij de ontwikkeling van een individueel zorgplan voor mensen met astma
No full textPatient involvement in research programming and implementation: a responsive evaluation of the Dialogue Model for research agenda setting
No full textBackground: The Dialogue Model for research agenda-setting, involving multiple stakeholders including patients, was developed and validated in the Netherlands. However, there is little insight into whether and how patient involvement is sustained during the programming and implementation of research agendas. Aim: To understand how the Dialogue Model can be optimised by focusing on programming and implementation, in order to stimulate the inclusion of (the perspectives of) patients in research. Methods: A responsive evaluation of the programming and implementation phases of nine agenda-setting projects that had used the Dialogue Model for agenda-setting was conducted. Fifty-four semi-structured interviews were held with different stakeholders (patients, researchers, funding agencies). Three focus groups with patients, funding agencies and researchers (16 participants) were organized to validate the findings. Results: Patient involvement in programming and implementation of the research agendas was limited. This was partly related to poor programming and implementation, partly to pitfalls in earlier phases of the agenda-setting. Optimization of the Dialogue Model is possible by attending to the nature of the agenda and its intended use in earlier phases. Attention should also be given to the ambassadors and intended users of agenda topics. Support is needed during programming and implementation to organize patient involvement and adapt organizational structures like review procedures. In all phases the attitude to patient involvement, stakeholder participation, especially of researchers, and formal and informal relationships between parties need to be addressed to build a strong relationship with a shared goal. Conclusion: Patient involvement in agenda-setting is not automatically followed by patient involvement in programming and implementation. More attention should be paid, in earlier stages, to the attitude and engagement of researchers and funding agencies
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
