Quantitative impact of including consumers in the scientific review of breast cancer research proposals.

Y. Andejeski, I. Bisceglio, K. Dickersin, Jean E. S. Johnson, S. Robinson, H. Smith, F. Visco, I. Rich
{"title":"Quantitative impact of including consumers in the scientific review of breast cancer research proposals.","authors":"Y. Andejeski, I. Bisceglio, K. Dickersin, Jean E. S. Johnson, S. Robinson, H. Smith, F. Visco, I. Rich","doi":"10.1089/152460902317586010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\nTo evaluate the impact of having breast cancer survivors with advocacy experience (consumers) participate as voting members of scientific review panels for proposals on breast cancer research. As major stakeholders, patients and other consumer advocates sought inclusion in all decision-making processes affecting funding of disease-targeted research.\n\n\nMETHOD\nCross-sectional analysis of assigned proposal scores ranging from 5.0 (acceptable) to 1.0 (outstanding); before (prepanel) and after (postpanel) opinion questionnaires. Forty-six panels reviewed 2206 proposals for the Fiscal Year 1995 Department of Defense (DOD) Breast Cancer Research Program. Analyses were limited to the 42 panels scheduled to meet on site and the 2190 proposals scored by both participant groups. There were 85 consumers and 638 scientists. The main outcome measures were proposal merit scores (raw, overall, and participant-specific means) and opinions concerning perceived benefits and drawbacks of consumer involvement.\n\n\nRESULTS\nIn general, the voting patterns of consumers were similar to those of scientists. Final proposal scores were the same as those that would have been obtained without consumer voting for 76.2% of the proposals, more favorable for 15.2% of the proposals, and less favorable for 8.6% of the proposals. For all but 13 proposals, the difference was +/-0.1. Prepanel opinions regarding consumer involvement were generally positive. Prepanel and postpanel comparisons almost always showed that significantly greater proportions of participants had positive postpanel opinions than had negative postpanel opinions. Having consumers on review panels was reported to be beneficial (83.9% and 98.2% for scientists and consumers, respectively) and to not have drawbacks (74.7% and 87.3%, respectively).\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nOur results support continued participation of consumers in our peer review process. The DOD program can serve as a model for other research programs considering consumer involvement.","PeriodicalId":80044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of women's health & gender-based medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"58","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of women's health & gender-based medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/152460902317586010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 58

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the impact of having breast cancer survivors with advocacy experience (consumers) participate as voting members of scientific review panels for proposals on breast cancer research. As major stakeholders, patients and other consumer advocates sought inclusion in all decision-making processes affecting funding of disease-targeted research. METHOD Cross-sectional analysis of assigned proposal scores ranging from 5.0 (acceptable) to 1.0 (outstanding); before (prepanel) and after (postpanel) opinion questionnaires. Forty-six panels reviewed 2206 proposals for the Fiscal Year 1995 Department of Defense (DOD) Breast Cancer Research Program. Analyses were limited to the 42 panels scheduled to meet on site and the 2190 proposals scored by both participant groups. There were 85 consumers and 638 scientists. The main outcome measures were proposal merit scores (raw, overall, and participant-specific means) and opinions concerning perceived benefits and drawbacks of consumer involvement. RESULTS In general, the voting patterns of consumers were similar to those of scientists. Final proposal scores were the same as those that would have been obtained without consumer voting for 76.2% of the proposals, more favorable for 15.2% of the proposals, and less favorable for 8.6% of the proposals. For all but 13 proposals, the difference was +/-0.1. Prepanel opinions regarding consumer involvement were generally positive. Prepanel and postpanel comparisons almost always showed that significantly greater proportions of participants had positive postpanel opinions than had negative postpanel opinions. Having consumers on review panels was reported to be beneficial (83.9% and 98.2% for scientists and consumers, respectively) and to not have drawbacks (74.7% and 87.3%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Our results support continued participation of consumers in our peer review process. The DOD program can serve as a model for other research programs considering consumer involvement.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
将消费者纳入乳腺癌研究建议科学审查的定量影响。
目的评估具有倡导经验的乳腺癌幸存者(消费者)作为乳腺癌研究提案科学评审小组投票成员的影响。作为主要利益攸关方,患者和其他消费者权益倡导者寻求将其纳入影响疾病研究资金的所有决策过程。方法对分配的提案得分进行横断面分析,得分范围从5.0(可接受)到1.0(优秀);问卷调查前(预调查)和问卷调查后(后调查)。46个小组审查了1995财政年度国防部(DOD)乳腺癌研究计划的2206项提案。分析仅限于计划在现场会面的42个小组,以及两个参与小组对2190个提案进行评分。共有85名消费者和638名科学家。主要的结果测量是提案的优点得分(原始的、总体的和参与者特定的方法)和关于消费者参与的感知好处和缺点的意见。结果总体而言,消费者的投票模式与科学家的投票模式相似。76.2%的最终提案得分与没有消费者投票的提案得分相同,15.2%的提案得分较好,8.6%的提案得分较差。除13项提案外,其余提案的差异均为+/-0.1。关于消费者参与的预审意见总体上是积极的。小组讨论前和小组讨论后的比较几乎总是表明,小组讨论后持积极意见的参与者比例明显高于小组讨论后持消极意见的参与者比例。据报道,让消费者参加评审小组是有益的(分别为科学家和消费者的83.9%和98.2%),并且没有缺点(分别为74.7%和87.3%)。结论:我们的研究结果支持消费者继续参与我们的同行评审过程。国防部的项目可以作为考虑消费者参与的其他研究项目的模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Maintaining fairness: who gets funded at NIH, and is the process fair? Entertainment outreach for women's health at CDC. Toward optimal health: the experts discuss polycystic ovary syndrome. Ovarian autoimmune disease and ovarian autoantibodies. Biologic and molecular mechanisms for sex differences in pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacogenetics: Part I.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1