Literature DB >> 11975860

Benefits and drawbacks of including consumer reviewers in the scientific merit review of breast cancer research.

Yvonne Andejeski1, Erica S Breslau, Elizabeth Hart, Ngina Lythcott, Linda Alexander, Irene Rich, Isabelle Bisceglio, Helene S Smith, Fran M Visco.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study assessed participant opinions about inclusion of breast cancer survivors as lay representatives in a scientific and technical merit review of proposals for the 1995 Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program (DOD BCRP).
METHODS: The evaluation employed a prepanel and postpanel survey design, which was intended to elicit feedback about attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs toward collaborative consumer and scientist participation in scientific merit review. Qualitative methods were used to describe the consumers' and scientists' responses, to explore the significance of this interaction, and to gain an understanding of the benefits and disadvantages of bringing these participants together.
RESULTS: Both groups were initially troubled about the consumers' lack of scientific background and questioned their qualifications and preparation for participation in a scientific panel. In particular, consumers were concerned that their judgments would not be taken seriously by scientists, a concern somewhat lessened by participation. After the meeting, scientists viewed the consumers as hard-working, dedicated survivors and advocates and endorsed the presence of carefully chosen lay panel members. Scientists were troubled that consumers potentially would have an impact on voting and on the subsequent scoring of proposals, a concern that was not validated by quantitative findings.
CONCLUSIONS: As a result of these data, the DOD BCRP continues to embrace clarify the nature of collaborative participation in scientific merit review.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11975860     DOI: 10.1089/152460902753645263

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Womens Health Gend Based Med        ISSN: 1524-6094


  11 in total

1.  Community engagement in research: frameworks for education and peer review.

Authors:  Syed M Ahmed; Ann-Gel S Palermo
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2010-06-17       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 2.  Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jo Brett; Sophie Staniszewska; Carole Mockford; Sandra Herron-Marx; John Hughes; Colin Tysall; Rashida Suleman
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2012-07-19       Impact factor: 3.377

3.  Investments in cancer genomics: who benefits and who decides.

Authors:  Morris W Foster; John J Mulvihill; Richard R Sharp
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2006-10-03       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  Strengthening community involvement in grant review: insights from the Community-University Research Partnership (CURES) pilot review process.

Authors:  Adam Paberzs; Patricia Piechowski; Debra Warrick; Carolyn Grawi; Celeste Choate; Glenda Sneed; Diane Carr; Kanchan Lota; Kent Key; Valerie Alexander; Pratik Ghosh; Carolyn Sampselle
Journal:  Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2014-01-23       Impact factor: 4.689

5.  Multi-dentate chelation induces fluorescence enhancement of pyrene moiety for highly selective detection of Fe(III).

Authors:  Yaru Yuan; Long Yu; Qihua Liu; Xiangyun Ma; Songlin Zhang; Mingtai Sun; Suhua Wang
Journal:  Anal Sci       Date:  2022-06-22       Impact factor: 1.967

6.  Supporting cancer survivors' participation in peer review: perspectives from NCI's CARRA program.

Authors:  Melissa B Gilkey
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2013-11-09       Impact factor: 4.442

7.  Service user involvement in cancer care: the impact on service users.

Authors:  Phil Cotterell; Gwen Harlow; Carolyn Morris; Peter Beresford; Bec Hanley; Anita Sargeant; John Sitzia; Kristina Staley
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2010-10-28       Impact factor: 3.377

8.  Involving service users in the Birth Timing project, a data linkage study analysing the timing of births and their outcomes.

Authors:  Mary Newburn; Miranda Scanlon; Rachel Plachcinski; Alison Jill Macfarlane
Journal:  Int J Popul Data Sci       Date:  2020-11-02

9.  Engaging people with lived experience in the grant review process.

Authors:  Katherine Rittenbach; Candice G Horne; Terence O'Riordan; Allison Bichel; Nicholas Mitchell; Adriana M Fernandez Parra; Frank P MacMaster
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2019-12-16       Impact factor: 2.652

10.  Development, implementation and evaluation of an online course on evidence-based healthcare for consumers.

Authors:  Genie Han; Musa Mayer; Joseph Canner; Kristina Lindsley; Reva Datar; Jimmy Le; Annette Bar-Cohen; Janice Bowie; Kay Dickersin
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-10-08       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.