Consumer involvement in systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research

Health Expectations

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 323-337

  Kreis, Julia ^a,b   Puhan, Milo A ^a   Schünemann, Holger J ^c   Dickersin, Kay ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b Efficiency in Health Care   (Germany)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Consumer involvement; Consumer participation; Research; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; CONSUMER; CONSUMER INVOLVEMENT; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; RESEARCH; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); UNITED STATES;

CONSUMER INVOLVEMENT; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; RESEARCH; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS;

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84887943431     PISSN: 13696513     EISSN: 13697625     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00722.x     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Institute of Medicine. Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2009.
2. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-148 (2010).
3. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. AHRQ community forum. Available at: http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/who-is-involved-in-the-effective-health-care-program1/ahrq-community-forum/, accessed 17 February 2011.
4. Boote J, Telford R, Cooper C. Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda. Health Policy, 2002; 61: 213-236.
5. McKevitt C, Fudge N, Wolfe C. What is involvement in research and what does it achieve? Reflections on a pilot study of the personal costs of stroke. Health Expectations, 2009; 13: 86-94.
6. National Health and Medical Research Council & Consumers' Health Forum of Australia. Statement on Consumer and Community Participation in Health and Medical Research. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2002.
7. Bastian H. The power of sharing knowledge: consumer participation in the Cochrane Collaboration. 1994. Available at: http://consumers.cochrane.org/sites/consumers.cochrane.org/files/BastianPowerofSharingKnowledge_1994.pdf, accessed 14 July 2010.
8. Entwistle VA, Renfrew MJ, Yearley S, Forrester J, Lamont T. Lay perspectives: advantages for health research. BMJ, 1998; 316: 463-466.
9. Boote J, Baird W, Beecroft C. Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: a narrative review of case examples. Health Policy, 2010; 95: 10-23.
10. Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Comparative effectiveness research funding. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/cer/index.html, accessed 28 February 2011.
11. The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane glossary. Available at: http://www.cochrane.org/glossary, accessed 28 February 2011.
12. Smith E, Donovan S, Beresford P et al. Getting ready for user involvement in a systematic review. Health Expectations, 2009; 12: 197-208.
13. Braye S, Preston-Shoot M. Emerging from out of the shadows? Service user and carer involvement in systematic reviews. Evidence & Policy, 2005; 1: 173-193.
14. Social Care Institute for Excellence. Collection of Examples of Service User and Carer Participation in Systematic Reviews. London: Social Care Institute for Excellence, 2007. Available at: http://www.scie.org.uk/publications/researchresources/rr02.pdf, accessed 8 January 2010.
15. Institute of Medicine.Finding what Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2011.
16. Hanley B, Bradburn J, Barnes M et al. Involving the Public in NHS, Public Health, and Social Care Research: Briefing Notes for Researchers, 2nd edn. Eastleigh: Involve, 2003. Available at: http://www.invo.org.uk/pdfs/Briefing%20Note%20Final.dat.pdf, accessed 12 October 2009.
17. CCNet. CCNet external review of consumers in the Cochrane Collaboration, focusing on review groups (Supplement to December 2009/January 2010 CCNet Newsletter). 2010. CCNet. Available at: http://www.ihe.ca/documents/CCNet%20external%20review_AppendixJan2010.pdf, accessed 18 July 2011.
18. Serrano-Aguilar P, Trujillo-Martín MM, Ramos-Goñi JM, Mahtani-Chugani V, Perestelo-Pérez L, Posada-de la Paz M. Patient involvement in health research: a contribution to a systematic review on the effectiveness of treatments for degenerative ataxias. Social Science & Medicine, 2009; 69: 920-925.
19. Shea B, Santesso N, Qualman A et al. Consumer-driven health care: building partnerships in research. Health Expectations, 2005; 8: 352-359.
20. Sakala C, Gyte G, Henderson S, Neilson JP, Horey D. Consumer-professional partnership to improve research: the experience of the Cochrane Collaboration's Pregnancy and Childbirth Group. Birth, 2001; 28: 133-137.
21. Boote J, Wendy B, Sutton A. Public involvement in the systematic review process in health and social care: a narrative review of case examples. Health Policy, 2011; doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2011.05.002.
22. Gauvin FP, Abelson J, Giacomini M, Eyles J, Lavis JN. "It all depends": conceptualizing public involvement in the context of health technology assessment agencies. Social Science & Medicine, 2010; 70: 1518-1526.
23. Boivin A, Currie K, Fervers B et al. Patient and public involvement in clinical guidelines: international experiences and future perspectives. Quality & Safety in Health Care, 2010; 19: 1-4.
24. Bastian H. Consumer and researcher collaboration in trials: filling the gaps. Clinical Trials, 2005; 2: 3-4.
25. Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J et al. Patients' perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2010; 26: 334-340.
26. Boote J, Barber R, Cooper C. Principles and indicators of successful consumer involvement in NHS research: results of a Delphi study and sub-group analysis. Health Policy, 2006; 755: 280-297.