Cited by 54Mental Health and Patient InvolvementHealth and Medical Research ImpactsResearch, Science, and Academia

Consumer involvement in decisions about what health-related research is funded

O’Donnell, Máire, Entwistle, Vikki·2004·Health Policy

Abstract

Objectives To consider whether, why and how research funders involve consumers in decisions about what health-related research is funded.Methods Postal survey and semi-structured interviews with UK funders of health-related research.Results Organisations that fund research have diverse goals and remits, and perceive themselves to be accountable in different ways and to different groups. They have a variety of reasons for involving consumers in decisions about what research is funded, but also a number of concerns about doing so-particularly about the ways in which consumer input might 'distort' the research agenda. Research funders use several types of decision-making structures and processes to identify and prioritise topics in which they want to invest and to select between research proposals. They involve consumers in these structures and processes in diverse ways. Little is known about the actual effects of this involvement, but the nature and extent of consumer influence on the research agenda is likely to be moderated by a number of factors, including the types of consumers involved, the particular structures and processes in which they are involved, the timing of their input and the different ways in which they are asked to contribute in relation to others.Conclusions Diverse research funding organisations are now involving consumers in the various approaches that they take to identify and prioritise research topics and to decide which proposals they will fund. The future development of their activities could usefully be informed by careful consideration not just of consumer involvement but of the implications of the various structures and processes that shape research agendas. The appropriateness of particular forms of consumer involvement should be considered in the broader context of the features of the whole research funding system, including the values implicit within it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.healthpol.2004.04.004

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • O'Donnell and Entwistle and van Bekkum and Hilton suggest that funders had many anxieties about PPI such as its 'distorting' the research agenda.

    “It should also be noted that O'Donnell and Entwistle 176 and van Bekkum and Hilton 177 suggest that funders had many anxieties about PPI such as its 'distorting' the research agenda.”
  • An earlier study on funders suggested that charities and centrally funded organisations adopted different approaches and rationales for PPI.

    “An earlier study on funders also suggested that charities and centrally funded organisations adopted different approaches and rationales for PPI.176”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 12 · Cited by 54

Authors
O’Donnell, M., & Entwistle, V.
Affiliations
University of Aberdeen (GB)
Venue
Health Policy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-12
Volume
70
Issue
3
Pages
281-290
ISSN
0168-8510 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2069446548
Cited by
54
References
12
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
FWCI
4.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Health Policy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health and Medical Research Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
Keywords
consumer involvement, health research funding, research funding agencies, research agenda setting, research prioritization, accountability, citizen participation, research funding system
MeSH terms
Community Participation, United Kingdom, Health Policy, Health Services Research, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Policy Making, Research Support as Topic, State Medicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review