Literature DB >> 12959677

The role of lay panelists on grant review panels.

Anne Monahan1, Donna E Stewart.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the attitudes of scientists and lay people participating in National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC) grant review panels towards the inclusion of non-scientists in the review process. Questionnaires were sent to the 126 scientists and 24 lay panelists who participated in NCIC's grant reviews in 1998. Survey topics included lay member selection, the role of the lay panelist and suggestions for improving the process. Data were analyzed qualitatively, and quantitatively using SPSS. Sixty-one of the 126 scientists (48.4%) and 16 of the 24 lay panelists (66.7%) completed the survey. Female scientists were significantly more supportive than male scientists of the selection of cancer patients/survivors/advocates as lay members (p = 0.01), but overall their responses were more similar to those of their male colleagues than of the lay respondents. There were significant differences between the lay and scientist respondents on lay member responsibilities (p = 0.01), the format of lay grant review (p = 0.04), lay member contribution to panel discussion (p = 0.01), and understanding of the lay role (p = 0.02).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12959677

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chronic Dis Can        ISSN: 0228-8699


  8 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

2.  The role of community representatives on health service committees: staff expectations vs. reality.

Authors:  Sally Nathan; Lynda Johnston; Jeffrey Braithwaite
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2010-10-28       Impact factor: 3.377

3.  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

4.  Ethics and Science in the Participatory Era: A Vignette-Based Delphi Study.

Authors:  Elizabeth Bromley; Lisa Mikesell; Dmitry Khodyakov
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2017-07-10       Impact factor: 1.742

5.  From subject to participant: ethics and the evolving role of community in health research.

Authors:  Elizabeth Bromley; Lisa Mikesell; Felica Jones; Dmitry Khodyakov
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2015-03-19       Impact factor: 9.308

6.  Tribal Deliberations about Precision Medicine Research: Addressing Diversity and Inequity in Democratic Deliberation Design and Evaluation.

Authors:  Erika Blacksher; Susan Brown Trinidad; R Brian Woodbury; Scarlett E Hopkins; Erica L Woodahl; Bert B Boyer; Wylie Burke; Vanessa Hiratsuka
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2022-02-28       Impact factor: 1.978

Review 7.  Supporting public involvement in interview and other panels: a systematic review.

Authors:  Susan Baxter; Mark Clowes; Delia Muir; Wendy Baird; Andrea Broadway-Parkinson; Carole Bennett
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2016-08-17       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 8.  Peer review of health research funding proposals: A systematic map and systematic review of innovations for effectiveness and efficiency.

Authors:  Jonathan Shepherd; Geoff K Frampton; Karen Pickett; Jeremy C Wyatt
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-05-11       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.