Abstract
The question we raise in this paper is, whether patient involvement might be a beneficial way to help determine and achieve the aims of translational (TR) research and, if so, how to proceed. TR is said to ensure a more effective movement (‘translation’) of basic scientific findings to relevant and useful clinical applications. In view of the fact that patients are supposed to be the primary beneficiaries of such translation and also have relevant knowledge based on their experience, listening to their voice early on in the innovation process might very well increase the effectiveness of the translation. After explaining how the concept of TR emerged and what it entails, this paper shows through a literature review which arguments have been put forward to promote patient involvement in health care research in a more general sense. We examine whether, and if so how, these arguments are relevant for the discourse on TR and we identify pitfalls and dilemmas. Ultimately, we conclude that it may be worthwhile to experiment with patient involvement in TR but that the design of such involvement requires careful consideration.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We are aware of the fact that most authors describe three rationales for patient involvement: instrumental, substantive, and normative [57] or a variant of this original. These are formal features of a reason. Although we are in accordance with works regarding these differentiations, we believe that, for our purpose, substantive reasons are more useful. The power and knowledge-rationales are substantive reasons for advocating patient involvement.
References
Abma, T. A., & Broerse, J. E. W. (2007). Zeggenschap in wetenschap: Patiëntenparticipatie in theorie en praktijk. Den Haag: Boom/Lemma.
Abma, T. A., & Broerse, J. E. (2010). Patient participation as dialogue: Setting research agendas. Health Expectations, 13(2), 160–173.
Advisory Council on Health Research. (2007). Translational research in the Netherlands. The Hague: Between laboratory and clinical practice.
Alonso-Coello, P., Montori, V. M., Solà, I., Schünemann, H. J., Devereaux, P. J., Charles, C., et al. (2008). Values and preferences in oral anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation, physicians’ and patients’ perspectives: Protocol for a two-phase study. Bmc Health Services Research, 8(1), 221.
Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216–224.
Biegelbauer, P. (2012). Presentation: Governance structures for translational research. Austria, Finland and Germany. Paper presented at the International Conference on Translational Research in Biomedicine: Challenges and Good Practice, Berlin.
Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Boote, J., Baird, W., & Beecroft, C. (2010). Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: A narrative review of case examples. Health policy, 95(1), 10–23.
Boote, J., Barber, R., & Cooper, C. (2006). Principles and indicators of successful consumer involvement in NHS research: Results of a Delphi study and subgroup analysis. Health Policy, 75(3), 280–297.
Boote, J., Telford, R., & Cooper, C. (2002). Consumer involvement in health research: A review and research agenda. Health Policy, 61(2), 213–236.
Broder, S., & Cushing, M. (1993). Trends in program project grant funding at the National Cancer Institute. Cancer Research, 53(3), 477.
Burke, W., Kuszler, P., Starks, H., Holland, S., & Press, N. (2008). Translational genomics: Seeking a shared vision of benefit. The American Journal of Bioethics, 8(3), 54–56.
Callard, F., Rose, D., & Wykes, T. (2012). Close to the bench as well as at the bedside: Involving service users in all phases of translational research. Health Expectations, 15(4), 389–400.
Callon, M. (1999). The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Science Technology & Society, 4(81), 81–94.
Caron-Flinterman, J. (2005). A new voice in science: Patient participation in decision-making on biomedical research. Amsterdam: VU.
Caron-Flinterman, J. F., Broerse, J. E. W., & Bunders, J. F. G. (2005). The experiential knowledge of patients: A new resource for biomedical research? Social Science and Medicine, 60(11), 2575–2584.
Caron-Flinterman, F. J., Broerse, J. E. W., & Bunders, J. F. G. (2007). Patient partnership in decision-making on biomedical research: Changing the network. Science, Technology and Human Values, 32(3), 339–368.
Collins, F. S. (2011). Reengineering translational science: The time is right. Science translational medicine, 3(90), 1–6.
Cornwall, A. (2008). Unpacking ‘Participation’: Models, meanings and practices. Community Development Journal, 43(3), 269–283.
Cripe, T. P., Thomson, B., Boat, T. F., & Williams, D. A. (2005). Promoting Translational Research in Academic Health Centers: Navigating the” Roadmap”. Academic Medicine, 80(11), 1012–1018.
de Wit, M., Abma, T., Koelewijn-Van Loon, M., Collins, S., & Kirwan, J. (2013). Facilitating and inhibiting factors for long-term involvement of patients at outcome conferences: Lessons learnt from a decade of collaboration in OMERACT—a qualitative study. BMJ open, 3(8), e003311.
de Wit, M., Abma, T., Koelewijn-van Loon, M., Collins, S., & Kirwan, J. (2013). Involving patient research partners has a significant impact on outcomes research: A responsive evaluation of the international OMERACT conferences. BMJ open, 3(5), 1–12.
Devereaux, P. J., Anderson, D. R., Gardner, M. J., Putnam, W., Flowerdew, G. J., Brownell, B. F., et al. (2001). Differences between perspectives of physicians and patients on anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation: Observational study. British Medical Journal, 323(7323), 1218–1221.
Elberse, J. E. (2012). Changing the health research system. Patient participation in health research. Den Bosch: Uitgeverij BOXpress.
Elberse, J. E., Caron-Flinterman, J. F., & Broerse, J. E. W. (2011). Patient–expert partnerships in research: How to stimulate inclusion of patient perspectives. Health Expectations, 14(3), 225–239.
Entwistle, V., Renfrew, M., Yearley, S., Forrester, J., & Lamont, T. (1998). Lay perspectives: Advantages for health research. British Medical Journal, 316(7129), 463–466.
Epstein, S. (1995). The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology and Human Values, 20(4), 408–437.
Fagnan, L. J., Davis, M., Deyo, R. A., Werner, J. J., & Stange, K. C. (2010). Linking practice-based research networks and clinical and translational science awards: New opportunities for community engagement by academic health centers. Academic Medicine, 85(3), 476–483.
Felt, U., & Fochler, M. (2008). The bottom-up meanings of the concept of public participation in science and technology. Science and Public Policy, 35(7), 489–499.
Flinterman, J. F., Teclemariam-Mesbah, R., Broerse, J. E. W., & Bunders, J. R. G. (2001). Transdisciplinarity: The new challenge for biomedical research. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 21(4), 253–266.
Geels, F. W., & Smit, W. A. (2000). Failed technology futures: Pitfalls and lessons from a historical survey. Futures, 32(9), 867–885.
Grady, P. A. (2010). Translational research and nursing science. Nursing Outlook, 58(3), 164–166.
Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24(1), 93–109.
Hanley, B., Bradburn, J., Barnes, M., Evans, C., Goodare, H., Kelson, M., et al. (2004). Involving the public in NHS, public health and social care research: Briefing notes for researchers. UK: Eastleigh.
Hewlett, S., Wit, M. D., Richards, P., Quest, E., Hughes, R., Heiberg, T., & Kirwan, J. (2006). Patients and professionals as research partners: Challenges, practicalities, and benefits. Arthritis Care & Research, 55(4), 676–680.
Kaltman, J. R., Schramm, C., & Pearson, G. D. (2010). The national heart, lung, and blood institute bench to bassinet program: A new paradigm for translational research. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 55(12), 1262–1265.
Khoury, M. J., Gwinn, M., Yoon, P. W., Dowling, N., Moore, C. A., & Bradley, L. (2007). The continuum of translation research in genomic medicine: How can we accelerate the appropriate integration of human genome discoveries into health care and disease prevention? Genetics in Medicine, 9(10), 665–674.
Kirwan, J., Heiberg, T., Hewlett, S., Hughes, R., Kvien, T., Ahlmèn, M., et al. (2003). Outcomes from the patient perspective workshop at OMERACT 6. The Journal of Rheumatology, 30(4), 868–872.
Kirwan, J. R., Hewlett, S. E., Heiberg, T., Hughes, R. A., Carr, M., Hehir, M., et al. (2005). Incorporating the patient perspective into outcome assessment in rheumatoid arthritis. progress at OMERACT 7. The Journal of Rheumatology, 32(11), 2250–2256.
Laan van der, A. L., & Boenink, M. (2012). Beyond bench and bedside: Disentangling the concept of translational research. Health Care Analysis, 1–18. doi:10.1007/s10728-012-0236-x.
Langstrup, H., & Ross Winthereik, B. (2008). The making of self-monitoring asthma patients: Mending a split reality with comparative ethnography. Comparative Sociology, 7(3), 362–386.
Maienschein, J., Sunderland, M., Ankeny, R. A., & Robert, J. S. (2008). The ethos and ethics of translational research. The American Journal of Bioethics, 8(3), 43–51.
Medical Research Council. (2008). Translational research strategy: A summary Retrieved August 2013, from http://www.mrc.ac.uk/consumption/groups/public/documents/content/mrc004551.pdf
Mojica, W. D., Arshad, A., Sharma, S., & Brooks, S. P. (2006). Manual exfoliation plus immunomagnetic bead separation as an initial step toward translational research. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 130(1), 74–79.
Nierse, C. J., Schipper, K., van Zadelhoff, E., van de Griendt, J., & Abma, T. A. (2012). Collaboration and co-ownership in research: Dynamics and dialogues between patient research partners and professional researchers in a research team. Health Expectations, 15(3), 242–254.
Nowotny, H. (2003). Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Science and Public Policy, 30(3), 151–156.
Pols, J. (2012). Care at a distance: On the closeness of technology. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Pols, J. (2014). Knowing patients turning patient knowledge into science. Science, Technology and Human Values, 39(1), 73–97.
Prainsack, B. (2012). Citizen science in the health domain. Encyclopedia of creativity, invention, and entrepeneurship.
Pretty, J. N. (1995). Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development, 23(8), 1247–1263.
Rip, A., & Kemp, R. (1998). Technological Change. In S. A. E. M. E. Rayner (Ed.), Human Choices and Climate Change (Vol. 2, pp. 327–399). Columbus, Ohio: Battelle.
Rip, A., Misa, T. J., & Schot, J. (1995). &, J. Pinter Publishers: Managing technology in society.
Roman, J. (2009). Creating a culture of discovery through clinical trials and translational research. The American journal of the medical sciences, 337(3), 155.
Rose, D., & Blume, S. (2003). Citizens as users of technology: An exploratory study of vaccines and vaccination. In N. A. T. P. Oudshoorn (Ed.), How Users Matter. The Co-construction of Users and Technology (pp. 103–132). Cambridge, Mass: MIT.
Salomon, J.-J. (2000). Science, technology and democracy. Minerva, 38, 33–51.
Schomberg, V. (2011). What is responsible innovation? Why we need it and how to do it. http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/european-group-ethics/docs/activities/schomberg.pdf
Stirling, A. (2008). “Opening Up” and “Closing Down” power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology and Human Values, 33(2), 262–294.
Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.
Sung, N. S., Crowley, W. F., Genel, M., Salber, P., Sandy, L., Sherwood, L. M., & Getz, K. (2003). Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise. JAMA, 289(10), 1278–1287.
Tallon, D., Chard, J., & Dieppe, P. (2000). Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer. Lancet, 355(9220), 2037–2040.
Teunissen, G. J., & Abma, T. A. (2012). Patients at the negotiating table: Exploring appraisal criteria of health research and quality of care used by patient advocacy groups in The Netherlands. European Journal for Person Centered Healthcare, 1(1), 232–239.
Trappenburg, M. (2008). Genoeg is genoeg: Over gezondheidszorg en democratie. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Tritter, J. Q., & McCallum, A. (2006). The snakes and ladders of user involvement: Moving beyond Arnstein. Health Policy, 76(2), 156–168.
van de Bovenkamp, H. M., & Trappenburg, M. J. (2009). Reconsidering patient participation in guideline development. Health Care Analysis, 17(3), 198–216.
Verhoeff, R. P., & Waarlo, A. J. (2013). Good intentions, stubborn practice: A critical appraisal of a public event on cancer genomics. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 3(1), 1–24.
Vignola-Gagné, E., & Biegelbauer, P. S. (2013). Translational research encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 1834–1843). Berlin: Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer.
Vossen, C. (2006). & Smit, C. ZonMw: Handboek patiëntenparticipatie in wetenschappelijk onderzoek.
Welfare, M. R., Colligan, J., Molyneux, S., Pearson, P., & Barton, J. R. (2006). The identification of topics for research that are important to people with ulcerative colitis. European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 18(9), 939–944.
Woolf, S. H. (2008). The meaning of translational research and why it matters. JAMA, 299(2), 211–213.
Zerhouni, E. (2003). The NIH roadmap. Science, 302(5642), 63–72.
Zerhouni, E. A. (2005). Translational and clinical science: Time for a new vision. New England Journal of Medicine, 353(15), 1621–1623.
Zerhouni, E. (2007). Translational research: Moving discovery to practice. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 81(1), 126–128.
Acknowledgment
The authors acknowledge the thoughtful comments of anonymous reviewers.
Funding
The authors are based at the University of Twente (LvdS, ALvdL and MB), and at the Radboudumc (EG, SvdB). This article is the result of a research project of the Centre for Society and the Life Sciences (CSG) in The Netherlands, funded by the Netherlands Genomics Initiative (NGI) and the Center for Translational Molecular Medicine (CTMM).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
van der Scheer, L., Garcia, E., van der Laan, A.L. et al. The Benefits of Patient Involvement for Translational Research. Health Care Anal 25, 225–241 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-014-0289-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-014-0289-0