Using qualitative research methods in biomedical innovation: The case of cultured red blood cells for transfusion

BMC Research Notes

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Lyall, Catherine ^a   King, Emma ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cultured red blood cells; Focus groups; Interdisciplinarity; Interviews; Participatory research; Public engagement; Qualitative research; Upstream engagement

Indexed keywords

CELL CULTURE; CYTOLOGY; ERYTHROCYTE; ERYTHROCYTE TRANSFUSION; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH;

CELLS, CULTURED; ERYTHROCYTE TRANSFUSION; ERYTHROCYTES; FOCUS GROUPS; HUMANS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH;

EID: 84969235330     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17560500     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13104-016-2077-4     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Titmuss RM. The gift relationship: from human blood to social policy. London: LSE Books; 1997.
2. Waldby C. Stem cells, tissue cultures and the production of biovalue. Health. 2002;6(3):305-23.
3. EuroBloodSubstitutes. http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/75269-en.html. Accessed 13 Mar 2016.
4. Now known as the Novosang project. http://novosang.co.uk. Accessed 13 Mar 2016.
5. Webster A. Recognize the value of social science. Nature. 2016;42:7.
6. Wilsdon J, Willis R. See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: DEMOS; 2004.
7. McRoberts RJ, Beard D, Walsh TS. A study of blood product use in patients with major trauma in Scotland: analysis of a major trauma database. Emerg Med J. 2007;24(5):325-9.
8. Lu SJ, Feng Q, Park JS, Vida L, Lee BS, Strausbauch M, Wettstein PJ, Honig GR, Lanza R. Biologic properties and enucleation of red blood cells from human embryonic stem cells. Blood. 2008;112(12):4475-84.
9. Siegrist M. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal. 2000;20(2):195-204.
10. Bates SR, Faulkner W, Parry S, Cunningham-Burley S. How do we know it's not been done yet? Trust, trust building and regulation in stem cell research. Sci Public Policy. 2010;37(9):703-18.
11. King E, Lyall C. Eliciting the views of the wider public regarding the potential introduction of cultured red blood cells for transfusion. Confidential project report Workstream 7 Industrially generated red blood cells for transfusion. 2015.
12. Jones MI, Greenfield SM, Bradley CP. Prescribing new drugs: qualitative study of influences on consultants and general practitioners. BMJ. 2001;323(7309):378.
13. Jonsson B, Kobelt G, Smolen J. The burden of rheumatoid arthritis and access to treatment: uptake of new therapies. Eur J Health Econ. 2008;8(Suppl 2):S61-86.
14. Aikin KJ, Swasy JL, Braman Patient and physician attitudes and behaviors associated with DTC promotion of prescription drugs - summary of FDA survey research results. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; 2004. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ScienceResearch/ResearchAreas/DrugMarketingAdvertisingandCommunicationsResearch/ucm152860.pdf. Accessed 9 Apr 2016.
15. Reast JD, Palihawadana D, Spickett-Jones G. UK physicians attitudes towards direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs: an extension and review. Int J Advert. 2004;23(2):229-51.
16. Bond R, Paterson L. Coming down from the ivory tower? Academics' civic and economic engagement with the community. Oxf Rev Educ. 2005;31(3):331-51.
17. Tait J, Williams R. Policy approaches to research and development: foresight, framework and competitiveness. Sci Public Policy. 1999;26(2):101-12.
18. EU Responsible Research and innovation. https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/responsible-research-innovation. Accessed 8 Mar 2016.
19. Borup M, Brown N, Konrad K, Van Lente H. The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technol Anal Strateg Manag. 2006;18(3-4):285-98.
20. Wynne B. May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert -lay knowledge divide. In: Lash S, Szerszynski B, WynneRisk B, editors. Environment and modernity: towards a new ecology. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 1998. p. 44-84.
21. Baker M. Why hES cells make teratomas. Nature reports stem cells online. 2009. http://www.nature.com/stemcells/2009/0903/090305/full/stemcells.2009.36.html. Accessed 30 Jan 2015.
22. Brown N, Webster A. New medical technologies and society: reordering life. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2004.
23. Mittra J, Tait J. Stem cells. In: Riskbridge Report, European Union. 2009.
24. Levidow L, Carr S, von Schomberg R, Wield D. Regulating agricultural biotechnology in Europe: harmonisation difficulties, opportunities, dilemmas. Sci Public Policy. 1996;23(3):135-57.
25. Tait J. More Faust than Frankenstein: the European debate about the precautionary principle and risk regulation for genetically modified crops. J Risk Res. 2001;4(2):175-89.
26. Tait J, Chataway J. Risk and uncertainty in genetically modified crop development: the industry perspective. In: Innogen Working Paper 1. 2003.
27. Tait J. Upstream engagement and the governance of science. The shadow of the genetically modified crops experience in Europe. EMBO Rep. 2009;10(S1):S18-22.
28. Tait J. Bringing it all together, Chapter 11 in innovation: managing risk, not avoiding it, first annual report of the Government Chief Scientific Adviser. 2014. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/innovation-managing-risk-not-avoiding-it. Accessed 13 Mar 2016.
29. Burke D. GM food and crops: what went wrong in the UK? Many of the public's concerns have little to do with science. EMBO Rep. 2004;5(5):432-6.
30. Jonsson B, Kobelt G, Smolen J. The burden of rheumatoid arthritis and access to treatment: uptake of new therapies. Eur J Health Econ. 2008;8(Suppl 2):S61-86.
31. Jones MI, Greenfield SM, Bradley CP. Prescribing new drugs: qualitative study of influences on consultants and general practitioners. BMJ. 2001;323(7309):378.
32. Thorne S. Data analysis in qualitative research. Evid Based Nurs. 2000;3(3):68-70.
33. Bryman A. Social research methods. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004.
34. Research ethics guidelines of the School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh. http://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/research/ethics. Accessed 3 May 2016.
35. Strauss AL, Corbin J. Grounded theory methodology. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage; 1994.
36. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349-57.
37. Fontana A, Frey JH. Interviewing: the art of science. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage; 1994.
38. Kitzinger J. Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. BMJ. 1995;311(7000):299-302.
39. Krueger RA. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Newbury Park: Sage; 1988.
40. Morgan DL, Krueger RA. When to use focus groups and why. In: Morgan DL, editor. Successful focus groups: advancing the state of the art. Newbury Park: Sage; 1993.
41. Ahnert V. Project blood pharma interim presentation. Confidential report to BloodPharma team. 2011.
42. Wilkinson S. Focus groups in feminist research: power, interaction, and the co-construction of meaning. Women's Stud Int Forum. 1998;21:111-25.
43. Barry A, Born G, Weszkalnys G. Logics of interdisciplinarity. Econ Soc. 2008;37(1):20-49.
44. Rip A. Futures of ELSA. EMBO Rep. 2009;10(7):666-70.
45. Fitzgerald D, et al. Ambivalence, equivocation and the politics of experimental knowledge: a transdisciplinary neuroscience encounter. Soc Stud Sci. 2014;44:701.
46. Lyall C, Bruce A, Marsden W, Meagher L. The role of funding agencies in creating interdisciplinary knowledge. Sci Public Policy. 2013;40(1):62-71.
47. Lyall C, Bruce A, Tait J, Meagher L. Interdisciplinary research journeys. practical strategies for capturing creativity. London: Bloomsbury Academic; 2011.
48. Wilkinson S. Focus group methodology: a review. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 1998;1(3):181-203.
49. Lyall C, Tait J. Beyond the limits to governance: new rules of engagement for the tentative governance of the life sciences. Res Policy. 2016. (in press).
50. Stilgoe J, Lock SJ, Wilsdon J. Why should we promote public engagement with science? Introduction to special issue: public engagement in science. Public Underst Sci. 2014;23(1):4-15.