Embedding meaningful patient involvement in the process of proposal appraisal at the Dutch Cancer Society
Science and Public Policy, ISSN: 0302-3427, Vol: 46, Issue: 2, Page: 254-263
2019
- 4Citations
- 20Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Although academic interest for patient involvement in health research decision-making is growing, in practice it proves challenging to involve patients meaningfully and sustainably. This article aims to unravel systemic factors influencing the embedding of meaningful patients' involvement in proposal appraisal at a private cancer research funding organization. In the case study, the emergent and participatory research approach Reflexive Monitoring in Action was applied. At first, a positive stance of stakeholders towards patient involvement was accompanied by a lack of tools and structures. This lack of tools led to the execution of various interventions. Analysis reveals that structural interventions succeeded in the bureaucratic context. The required cultural shift was also addressed, but took longer to materialize. This may have reduced the meaningful involvement of patients in proposal appraisal in practice. To overcome the underlying systemic barriers, an approach is needed that encourages stakeholders' reflexivity in the structural, cultural, and practical domain.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85065721695&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy055; https://academic.oup.com/spp/article/46/2/254/5265274; http://academic.oup.com/spp/article-pdf/46/2/254/28293508/scy055.pdf; https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy055; https://academic.oup.com/spp/article-abstract/46/2/254/5265274?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know