Patient partnership in decision-making on biomedical research: Changing the Network

Science Technology and Human Values

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 339-368

  Caron Flinterman, Francisca J ^a   Broerse, Jacqueline E W ^a   Bunders, Joske F G ^a  

^a ATHENA INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Biomedical research; Patient involvement; Socio technical networks; Transition management; User participation

Indexed keywords

EID: 34147218179     PISSN: 01622439     EISSN: 15528251     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0162243906298354     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Abelson, J., P.-G. Forest, J. Eyles, P. Smith, E. Martin, and F.-P. Gauvin. 2003. Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science & Medicine 57 (2): 239 - 51.
2. Alzheimer's Society. 2002. Research newsletter: Quality research in dementia newsletter of the Alzheimer's Society, August 2002. London: Alzheimer's Society.
3. Alzheimer's Society. 2004. Briefing on the new patient involvement structures that have replaced community health councils. For branches and supporters of the Alzheimer's Society. London: Alzheimer's Society.
4. Andersen, I.-E., and B. Jaeger. 1999. Danish participatory models. Scenario workshops and consensus conferences: Towards more democratic decision-making. Science and Public Policy 26 (5): 331-40.
5. Arnstein, S.R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35 (4): 216-24.
6. Barns, I., R. Schibeci, A. Davison, and R. Shaw. 2000. "What do you think about genetic medicine?" Facilitating sociable public discourse on developments in the new genetics. Science, Technology, & Human Values 25 (3): 283-308.
7. Berkhout, F., A. Smith, and A. Stirling. 2003. Socio-technological regimes and transition contexts. SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series nr. 160. Brighton, UK: The Freeman Centre, University of Sussex.
8. Boote, J., R. Telford, and C. Cooper. 2002. Consumer involvement in health research: A review and research agenda. Health Policy 61 (2): 213-36.
9. Bonham, V.L., and V.R. Nathan. 2002. Environmental public health research: Engaging communities. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 205 (1-2): 11-18.
10. Broerse, J.E.W. 1998. Towards a new development strategy: How to include small-scale farmers in the technological innovation process. Delft, the Netherlands: Eburon.
11. Bunders, J., and J. Van Eijndhoven. 1987. The importance of interactions in broadening the base for decision-making on technology. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 7 (3-4): 687-96.
12. Cabello, C., M. Rosales, L. Sanz-Menendez, N. Brown, A. Nellis, B. Rappert, A. Webster, A. Lohnberg, and B. van der Meulen. 1999. Mapping institutional arrangements relating to science, technology and innovation in the health sector. TSER programme: Stage II. FOR-MAKIN project: Work package 2. www.iesam.csic.es/proyecto/formwp2.pdf, accessed in December 2004.
13. Callon, M. 1991. Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In A sociology of monsters. Essays on power, technology and domination, edited by J. Law, 132-61. London and New York: Routledge.
14. Callon, M. Technological conception and adoption network: Lessons for the CTA practitioner. In Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment, edited by A. Rip, T. J. Misa, and J. Schot, 307-30. London and New York: Pinter Publishers.
15. Callon, M., P. Laredo, V. Rabeharisoa, T. Gonard, and T. Leray. 1992. The management and evaluation of technological programs and the dynamics of techno-economic networks: The case of the AFME. Research Policy 21 (3): 215-36.
16. Caron-Flinterman, J.F., J.E.W. Broerse, and J.F.G. Bunders. 2005. The experiential knowledge of patients: A new resource for biomedical research. Social Science and Medicine 60 (11): 2575-84.
17. Chopyak, J., and P. Levesque. 2002a. Public participation in science and technology decision making: Trends for the future. Technology in Society 24 (1): 155-66.
18. Chopyak, J., and P. Levesque. 2002 b. Community-based research and changes in the research landscape. Bulletin of Science, Technology &; Society 22 (3): 203 - 09.
19. Collins, H.M., and R. Evans. 2002. The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science 32 (2): 235-96.
20. Cornwall, A., and R. Jewkes. 1995. What is participatory research? Social Science & Medicine 41 (12): 1667-76.
21. Cozzens, S.E., and E.J. Woodhouse. 1995. Science, government, and the politics of knowledge. In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, and T. Pinch, 533-53. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22. De Koning, K., and M. Martin 1996. Participatory research in health: Issues and experiences. London & New Jersey: Zed Books Ltd.
23. De Swaan, A. 1979. Professionalisering en protoprofessionalisering. In Sociologie van de psychotherapie I: De opkomst van het psychotherapeutisch bedrijf, edited by C. Brinkgreve, J. Onland, and A. De Swaan, 17 - 24. Utrecht and Antwerpen: Het Spectrum.
24. Elzen, B., B. Enserink, and W.A. Smit. 1996. Socio-technical networks: How a technology studies approach may help to solve problems related to technical change. Social Studies of Science 26 (1): 95-141.
25. Entwistle, V.A., M.J. Renfrew, S. Yearley, J. Forrester, and T. Lamont. 1998. Lay perspectives: Advantages for health research. British Medical Journal 316 (7129): 463-66.
26. Epstein, S. 1996. Impure science; Aids, activism, and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
27. Epstein, S. 2004. Bodily differences and collective identities: The politics of gender and race in biomedical research in the United States. Body & Society 10 (2): 183-203.
28. Fiorino, D.J. 1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values 15 (2): 226-43.
29. Flinterman, J.F., R. Teclemariam-Mesbah, J.E.W. Broerse, and J.F.G. Bunders. 2001. Transdisciplinarity: The new challenge for biomedical research. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 2 (4): 253-66.
30. Fuller, S. 2000. The governance of science: Ideology and the future of the open society. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
31. Gaventa, J. 1998. The scaling-up and institutionalization of PRA: Lessons and challenges. In Who changes? Institutionalizing participation in development, edited by J. Blackburn and J. Holland, 153 - 66. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
32. Geels, F., and R. Kemp 2000. Transities vanuit socio-technisch perspectief. Enschede/Maastricht, the Netherlands: CSTM/MERIT.
33. Gelijns, A.C. 1991. Innovation in clinical practice. The dynamics of medical technology development. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
34. Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow 1994. The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
35. Graham, J., D. Broom, and A. Whittaker. 2001. Consulting about consulting: Challenges to effective consulting about public health research. Health Expectations 4 (4): 209-12.
36. Gray, R.E., M. Fitch, C. Davis, and C. Phillips. 2000. Challenges of participatory research: Reflections on a study with breast cancer self-help groups. Health Expectations 3 (4): 243-52.
37. Grin, J., H. Van de Graaf, and P. Vergragt. 2003. Een derde generatie milieubeleid: Een sociologisch perspectief en een beleidswetenschappelijk programma. Beleidswetenschap 17 (1): 51-72.
38. Hanley, B., A. Truesdale, A. King, D. Elbourne, and I. Chalmers. 2001. Involving consumers in designing, conducting, and interpreting randomised controlled trials: Questionnaire survey. British Medical Journal 322 (7285): 519-23.
39. Herxheimer, A., and H. Goodare. 1999. Who are you, and who are we? Looking through some key words. Health Expectations 2 (1): 3-6.
40. Israel, B.A., A.J. Schulz, E.A. Parker, and A.B. Becker. 1998. Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health 19: 173-202.
41. Johnson, M.C., M. Poulin, and M. Graham. 2003. Towards an integrated approach to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity: Lessons learned from the Rideau River Biodiversity Project. Human Ecology Forum 10 (1): 40-55.
42. Joss, S., and J. Durant. 1995. Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum.
43. Kasemir, B., C.C. Jaeger, and J. Jäger. 2003. Citizen participation in sustainability assessments. In Public participation in sustainability science: A handbook, edited by B. Kasemir, J. Jäger, C. C. Jaeger, and M. T. Gardner, 3 - 36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44. Kasemir, B., J. Jäger, C.C. Jaeger, and M.T. Gardner 2003. Public participation in sustainability science: A handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45. Kelson, M.C. 1999. Consumer collaboration, patient-defined outcomes and the preparation of Cochrane Reviews. Health Expectations 2 (2): 129-35.
46. Kemp, R. and D. Loorbach. 2003. Governance for Sustainability Through Transition Management. In [ital.]European Association for Evolutionary Political Economy 2003 Conference. [end ital.] Maastrict, the Netherlands.
47. Kent, A. 2002. Patients + Research = Result! The role of patients and their interest groups in biomedical research. EMBO Reports 3 (8): 707-8.
48. Koops, L., and R.I. Lindley. 2002. Thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke: Consumer involvement in design of new randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal 325 (7361): 415-417.
49. Laird, F.N. 1993. Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decision making. Science, Technology, & Human Values 18 (3): 341-61.
50. Lyall, C., A. Bruce, J. Firn, M. Firn, and J. Tait. 2004. Assessing end-use relevance of public sector research organizations. Research Policy 33 (1): 73-87.
51. Matsunaga, D.S., R. Enos, C.C. Gotay, R.O. Banner, H. DeCambra, O.W. Hammond, N. Hedlund, E.K. Ilaban, B.F. Issell, and J.A. Tsark. 1996. Participatory research in a native Hawaiian community: The Wai'anae Cancer Research Project. Cancer 78 (7S): 1582-86.
52. Maxwell, J.A. 1996. Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
53. Ministry of Education Culture and Science. 2004. Science Budget 04. Focus on excellence and greater value. The Hague: Ministry of Education, Culture and Science(OC&W).
54. Nederbragt, H. 2000. The biomedical disciplines and the structure of biomedical and clinical knowledge. Theoretical Medicine 21 (6): 553-66.
55. Nordin, I. 2000. Expert and non-expert knowledge in medical practice. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 3 (3): 297-304.
56. Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
57. Oliver, S., R. Milne, J. Bradburn, P. Buchanan, L. Kerridge, T. Walley, and J. Gabbay. 2001. Involving consumers in a needs-led research programme: A pilot project. Health Expectations 4 (1): 18-28.
58. Omta, S.W.F. 1995. Management control in biomedical research and pharmaceutical innovation. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
59. Ong, B.N., and H. Hooper. 2003. Involving users in low back pain research. Health Expectations 6 (4): 332-41.
60. Parker, E.A., E. Eng, B. Laraia, A. Ammerman, J. Dodds, L. Margolis, and A. Cross 1998. Coalition building for prevention: Lessons learned from the North Carolina community-based public health initiative. Journal of Public Health Management & Practice 4 (2): 25 - 36.
61. Phillips, W.R., and G.D. Grams. 2003. Involving patients in primary care research meeting worked well. British Medical Journal 326 (7402): 1329.
62. Popay, J., and G. Williams. 1996. Public health research and lay knowledge. Social Science and Medicine 42 (5): 759-68.
63. Rabeharisoa, V., and M. Callon. 2002. The involvement of patients' associations in research. International Social Science Journal 54 (171): 57-63.
64. Rabeharisoa V. Callon M. 2004. Patients and scientists in French muscular dystrophy research. In States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order, edited by Sheila Jasanoff, 142-60. London: Routledge.
65. Regeer, B.J., and J.F.G. Bunders. 2003. The epistemology of transdisciplinary research: From knowledge integration to communities of practice. Interdisciplinary Environmental Review 5 (2): 98-118.
66. Resnik, D. 2001. Setting biomedical research priorities: Justice, science, and public participation. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 11 (2): 181-204.
67. Resnik, D.B. 2003. Setting biomedical research priorities in the 21st century. Virtual Mentor 5 (6). http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/ 10571.html, accessed in July 2005.
68. Reuzel, R. 2004. Interactive technology assessment of paediatric cochlear implantation. Poiesis & Praxis: International Journal of Technology Assessment and Ethics of Science 2 (2-3): 119-37.
69. Rip, A. 2003. Constructing expertise: In a third wave of science studies ? Social Studies of Science 33 (3): 419-434.
70. Rip, A., and R. Kemp. 1998. Technological change. In Human choice and climate change, vol. 2, Resources and technology, edited by S. Rayner and L. Malone, 327-99. Washington DC: Batelle Press.
71. Rotmans, J. 2003. Transitiemanagement: Sleutel voor een duurzame samenleving. Assen, the Netherlands: Van Gorcum.
72. Rotmans, J., R. Kemp, and M. Van Asselt. 2001. More evolution than revolution: Transition management in public policy. Foresight 3 (1): 1 - 17.
73. Rotmans, J., R. Kemp, M. Van Asselt, F. Geels, G. Verbong, and K. Molendijk. 2000. Transities en transitiemanagement: De casus van een emissiearme energievoorziening. Maastricht, the Netherlands: ICIS & MERIT.
74. Rowe, G., and L.J. Frewer. 2000. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values 25 (1): 3-29.
75. Rowe G. Frewer L.J. 2005. A typology of public engagement mechanisms, Science, Technology, & Human Values 29 (4): 512-56.
76. Salomon, J.-J. 2000. Science, technology and democracy. Minerva 38 (1): 33-51.
77. Saunders, M., P. Lewis, and A. Thornhill. 2003. Research methods for business students. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
78. Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
79. Telford, R., C.A. Beverley, C.L. Cooper, and J.D. Boote. 2002. Consumer involvement in health research: Fact or fiction? British Journal of Clinical Governance 7 (2): 92-103.
80. Thompson Klein, J., W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, R. Häberli, A. Bill, R.W. Scholz, and M. Welti. 2001. Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving among science, technology, and society. An effective way for managing complexity. Basel, Boston, and Berlin: Birkhäuser Verlag.
81. Till, J.E., and K.R. Meyer. 2001. Public involvement in science and decision making. Health Physics 80 (4): 370-78.
82. Van Asselt, M.B.A., and N. Rijkens-Klomp. 2002. A look in the mirror: Reflection on participation in integrated assessment from a methodological perspective. Global Environmental Change 12 (3): 167-84.
83. Van der Wilt, G.J. 1995. Alternative ways of framing Parkinson's Disease: Implications for priorities in health care and biomedical research. Industrial & Environmental Crisis Quarterly 9 (1): 13-48.
84. Van Hoëvell-van Dapperen, L. 1998. Nederland Biomedisch Onderzoeksland: Financiering, prioritering en aansturing van biomedisch onderzoek. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
85. Webler, T. 1995. " Right" discourse in citizen participation: An evaluative yardstick. In Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse, edited by O. Renn, T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann, 35-86. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
86. Webler, T., and O. Renn. 1995. A brief primer on participation: Philosphy and practice. In Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse, edited by O. Renn, T. Webler and P. Wiedemann, 17-33. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
87. Weissmann, G. 1982. The need to know: Utilitarian and esthetic values of biomedical science. In New knowledge in the biomedical sciences: Some moral implications of its acquisition, possession, and use, edited by W. B. Bondeson, H. T. Engelhardt, S. F. Spicker, and J. M. White, 105-112. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: D. Reidel.
88. ZonMw. 2003. Inspiratie tot innovatie. Beleidsplan ZonMw 2003-2006. The Hague: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development(ZonMw).