Traditionally, patients are rarely seen as partners in health research; their influence on priority setting, research design, the undertaking of research, and interpretation and dissemination of findings was marginal. Nowadays, health researchers, funding agencies, governments, and patient organizations are beginning to acknowledge that the passive role of patients in health research is no longer satisfactory. The emerging commitment and consensus concerning the aims and features of patient participation in research have created a need for an appropriate method to engage patients as partners in health research. In this article, the author argues that a responsive-constructivist approach to evaluation fits with the aims and features of patient participation. She illustrates its potential with a case example that concerns a dialogue among patients and (clinical) researchers in the field of spinal cord injuries. She reflects on learning experiences and the (un)expected difficulties and potentials in creating social conditions for patient participation in health research.
Aakster, C. W. (1999). Patiëntenperspectief in onderzoek [Patients’ perspective in research]: Rapport ten behoeve van de gelijknamige Tijdelijke Projectgroep van ZON. The Hague, the Netherlands: Zorg Onderzoek Nederland.
2.
Abma, T. A. (1998). Storytelling as inquiry in a mental hospital. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 821-838.
3.
Abma, T. A. (2001). Evaluating palliative care: Facilitating reflexive dialogues about an ambiguous concept. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 4(3), 261-276.
4.
Abma, T. A., Greene, J. C., Karlsson, O., Ryan, K., Schwandt, T. A., & Widdershoven, G. A. M. (2001). Dialogue on dialogue. Evaluation, 7(2), 164-180.
5.
Abma, T. A., & Widdershoven, G. A. M. (2005). Sharing stories: Narrative and dialogue in responsive nursing evaluation. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 28(1), 90-109.
6.
Bagseven, G., Haster, M., Isken, L., Kok, M., van der Poll, E., et al. (2002). De keuze aan de patiënt. Patiëntenperspectief in Biomedisch Onderzoek. [Patients’ perspective in biomedical research]. Rapport van de Vrije Universiteit in opdracht van de CG-Raad [Report of the Free University of Amsterdam, commissioned by the Council for Chronically Ill and People With Disabilities]. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Author.
7.
Balch, G. I., & Mertens, D. M. (1999). Focus group design and group dynamics: Lessons from the deaf and hard of hearing participants, American Journal of Evaluation, 20(2), 265-277.
8.
Beresford, D. (2003). It’s our lives: A short theory of knowledge, distance and experience. London: OSP for Citizens.
9.
Blume, S., & Catshoek, G. (2001). Patiëntenperspectief in onderzoek: Mogelijke strategieën [Patients’ perspective in research: Possible strategies]. Utrecht, the Netherlands: PatientenPraktijk.
10.
Blume, S., & Dongen, E. Van (2004). Ten geleide [Editorial]. Medische Antropologie, 16(1), 1-3.
11.
Boog, B., Coenen, H., & Keune, L. (2001). Action research: Empowerment and reflection. Tilburg, the Netherlands: Dutch University Press.
12.
Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation. (2003). Christopher Reeve: Biography. Retrieved August 31, 2005, from http://www.christopherreeve.org/christopherreeve/christopherreevemain.cfm
13.
De Jonge, M. (2001). “Ik zoek geen beterweters, maar bondgenoten” Onderzoek moet bijdragen een beter leven [“Ido not look for experts, but for allies”: Research mustlead to a better life]. Versie, 3, 12-19.
14.
De Schakel. (1999). Beleidsplan 2000-2004, Naar een hogere versnelling [Policy document, Spinal Cord Association]: Voorstel van de Werkgroep Beleidsplan, 1 september 1999. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Author.
15.
De Schakel. (2001). Een mens, een dwarslaesie, Mensen met een dwarslaesie vertellen hun verhaal [A human being, a spinal cord injury: People with a spinal cord injury are telling their stories]. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Author.
16.
De Wit, M. (2004). “Bemoei je met je eigen zaken!” Partnerschap in onderzoek: Een positiebepaling binnen de reumatologie [“Mind your own business!”: Partnership in research within rheumatology]. Medische Antropologie, 16(1), 21-34.
17.
Flinterman, J. F., Teclemariam-Mesbah, R., Broerse, J. E. W., & Bunders, J. F. G. (2001). Transdisciplinarity: The new challenge for biomedical research. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 21(4), 253-266.
18.
Frank, A. W. (1995). The wounded storyteller. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
19.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1960). Wharheit und Methode [Truth and method]. Tubingen, Germany: Mohr.
20.
Gezondheidsraad [Council for Health]. (2000). Van Implementeren naar leren; het belang van tweerichtingsverkeer tussen praktijk en wetenschap in de gezondheidszorg [From implementation to learning: The importance of mutual influence between practice and science in health care]. The Hague, the Netherlands: Author.
21.
Gibbons, M. (1999). Science new social contract with society. Nature, 402(6761 Suppl.), 81-84.
22.
Gill, C. J. (1999). Invisibility ubiquity: The surprising relevance of disability issues in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 20(2), 279-287.
23.
Goudriaan, G., & Kleingeld, P. (2001). Kloof tussen onderzoekers en patiënten overbruggen: Aandacht voor gebruikersperspectief in onderzoek [Bridging the gap between researchers and patients: Attention to the user’s perspective in research]. Versie, 3, 4-11.
24.
Greene, J. C. (1997). Participatory evaluation. In L. Mabry (Ed.), Evaluation and the post-modern dilemma (pp. 171-189) Greenwich, UK: JAI.
25.
Greene, J. (2001). Dialogue in evaluation: A relational perspective. Evaluation, 7(2), 181-203.
26.
Greene, J. C., & Abma, T. A. (Eds.). (2001). Responsive evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
27.
Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (2000). Reconstructing the relationship between universities and society through action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 85-106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
29.
Heyman, J. (1995). Patients in research: Not just subjects but partners. Science, 269, 797-798.
30.
Janesick, V. J. (2000). The choreography of qualitative research design: Minuets, improvisations and crystallisation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 379-400). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31.
Kleinman, A. (1995). Writing at the margin. Berkeley: University of California Press.
32.
Klop, R., van Kammen, J., & Eck, E. Van. (2004). Patiënten doen mee bij ZonMw [Patients join in at ZonMw]. Medische Antropologie, 16(1), 5-20.
33.
Koch, T. (1994). Beyond measurement: Fourth generation evaluation in nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 20, 1148-1155.
34.
Koch, T. (1996). Implementation of a hermeneutic inquiry in nursing: Philosophy, rigor and representation. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 24, 174-184.
35.
Koch, T. (2000). “Having a say”: Negotiation in fourth generation evaluation. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31(1), 117-125.
36.
Lee, B. (1999). The implications of diversity and disability for evaluation practice: Commentary on Gill. American Journal of Evaluation, 20(2), 289-293.
37.
Lincoln, Y. S. (1993). I and Thou: Method, voice, and roles in research with the silenced. In D. McLaughlin & W. Tierney. (Eds.), Naming silenced lives (pp. 29-47). New York: Routledge.
38.
McKie, L. (2003). Rhetorical spaces: Participation and pragmatism in the evaluation of community health work. Evaluation, 9(3), 307-324.
39.
Mertens, D. M. (2002). The evaluator’s role in the transformative context. In K. E. Ryan & T. A. Schwandt (Eds.), Exploring evaluator role and identity, evaluation and society (pp. 103-117). Greenwich, CT: IAP.
40.
Meadows, L. M., & Morse, J. M. (2001). Constructing evidence within a qualitative project. In J. M. Morse, J. M. Swanson, & A. J. Kuzel (Eds.), The nature of qualitative evidence (pp. 187-201). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
NVDG. (2002). Onderzoek in de dwarslaesierevalidatie. Per december 2002 [Research for spinal cord injury rehabilitation]. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Revalidatiecentrum, De Hoogstraat.
42.
Pietroni, P., Winkler, F., & Graham, L. (2003). Learning from patients, cultural revolution. British Medical Journal, 326, 1304-1306.
43.
Rabeharisoa, V. (2003). The struggle against neuromuscular diseases in France and the emergence of the “partnership model” of patient organization. Social Science & Medicine, 57, 2127-2136.
44.
Rabeharisoa, V., & Callon, M. (2004). Patients and scientists in French muscular dystrophy research. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order (pp. 142-160). London: Routledge.
45.
Ray, L., & Mayan, M. (2001). Who decides what counts as evidence? In J. M. Morse, J. M. Swanson, & A. J. Kuzel (Eds.), The nature of evidence in qualitative research (pp. 50-73). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46.
Reissman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
47.
Schwandt, T. A. (2001a). A postscript on thinking about dialogue. Evaluation, 7(2), 264-276.
48.
Schwandt, T. A. (2001b). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49.
Schwandt, T. A. (2004). Evaluating holistic rehabilitation praxisOslo, Norway: Kommuneforlaget.
50.
Stake, R. E. (1975). To evaluate an arts program. In R. E. Stake, Evaluating the arts in education: A responsive approach (pp. 13-31). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
51.
Stake, R. E. (2004). Standards-based and responsive evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52.
Van der Geest, S. (2004, September). The patient as co-researcher. Paper presented in response to a special issue on “De patient als medeonderzoeker,” Medische Antropologie, The Hague, the Netherlands.
53.
Van der Wilt, G., & Reuzel. R. (1998). Assessment of health technologies: Which issues should be addressed?Evaluation, 4(3), 351-358.
54.
Van de Ven, L., Witte, L., de & Widdershoven, G. A. M. (2002). Onderzoeksvoorstel Cliëntenperspectief in Revalidatieonderzoek [Research proposal: Clients’ perspective on rehabilitation research]. The Hague, the Netherlands: ZonMw.
55.
Widdershoven, G. A. M. (2001). Dialogue in evaluation: Ahermeneutic perspective. Evaluation, 7(2), 253-263.
