The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Patient participation as dialogue: setting research agendas
Open accessAbstract
Background Collaboration with patients in healthcare and medical research is an emerging development. We aimed to develop a methodology for health research agenda setting processes grounded in the notion of participation as dialogue. Methods We conducted seven case studies between 2003 and 2007 to develop and validate a Dialogue Model for patient participation in health research agenda setting. The case studies related to spinal cord injury, neuromuscular diseases, renal failure, asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, burns, diabetes and intellectual disabilities. Results The Dialogue Model is grounded in participatory and interactive approaches and has been adjusted on the basis of pilot work. It has six phases: exploration; consultation; prioritization; integration; programming; and implementation. These phases are discussed and illustrated with a case description of research agenda setting relating to burns. Conclusions The dialogue model appeared relevant and feasible to structure the process of collaboration between stakeholders in several research agenda setting processes. The phase of consultation enables patients to develop their own voice and agenda, and prepares them for the broader collaboration with other stakeholder groups. Challenges include the stimulation of more permanent changes in research, and institutional transitions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Ladder Of Citizen Participation
Arnstein, S. R. (1969) · Journal of the American Institute of Planners · doi:10.1080/01944366908977225 · Cited by 17,064
Cited by
Greenhalgh, T., Hinton, L., Finlay, T., Macfarlane, A., Fahy, N., Clyde, B., & Chant, A. (2019) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12888 · Cited by 1,059
Manafo, E., Petermann, L., Mason-Lai, P., & Vandall-Walker, V. (2018) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-018-0282-4 · Cited by 482
Harrison, J. D., Auerbach, A. D., Anderson, W., Fagan, M., Carnie, M., Hanson, C., Banta, J., Symczak, G., Robinson, E., Schnipper, J., et al. (2019) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12873 · Cited by 286
Living with Parkinson's disease: Priorities for research suggested by patients
Schipper, K., Dauwerse, L., Hendrikx, A., Leedekerken, J. W., & Abma, T. A. (2014) · Parkinsonism & Related Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.parkreldis.2014.04.025 · Cited by 52
Self-citationKnowles, S., Sharma, V., Fortune, S., Wadman, R., Churchill, R., & Hetrick, S. (2022) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.13479 · Cited by 49
Metadata
- Authors
- Abma, T. A., & Broerse, J. E. W.
- Venue
- Health Expectations
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-05-26
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 160-173
- ISSN
- 1369-6513 (ISSN-L)
- 1369-7625
- OpenAlex
- W1845252898
- Cited by
- 245
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 22.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Patient participation as dialogue: setting research agendas. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00549.x
- The paper
- Abma, T. A., & Broerse, J. E. W. (2010). Patient participation as dialogue: setting research agendas. Health Expectations. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00549.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.