Evidence Library

image_pdfimage_print

Title: Benefits and drawbacks of including consumer reviewers in the scientific merit review of breast cancer research.
Author: Andejeski, Y., Breslau, E., Hart, E., Lythcott, N., Alexander, L., Rich, I., Bisceglio, I., Smith, H. & Visco, F.
Date Published: 2002
Reference: Journal of Women's Health and Gender-Based Medicine, 11(2), 119-136.
Are service users or carers authors: Yes

Abstract:

Aim: To find out the views of scientists and consumers on consumer involvement in peer review. The study focused on the involvement of survivors of breast cancer in the review of research proposals for the US Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Programme in 1995.

Methods: Members of the review panels (over 700 people in total) were sent a questionnaire before and after the panel meetings where proposals were reviewed and scored. The survey asked people about their attitudes, perceptions and beliefs about scientists and consumers working together to review research proposals.
 
Findings/recommendations: Both the scientists and consumers were initially concerned about whether consumers would have the necessary skills and training to take part in a scientific review. Some scientists also thought that consumers might be over-emotional and could derail the meeting. The consumers were also concerned that their views would not be taken seriously by the scientists, but were less concerned about this after the meeting. The scientists viewed the consumers as hard-working, dedicated and effective advocates after the meeting and said they were in favour of involving carefully chosen lay panel members. The scientists were initially worried that involving consumers would change the voting and scoring on proposals, but this did not happen. They were glad of the opportunity to learn about the concerns of breast cancer survivors first hand. Overall, the panel meeting appeared to have supported a spirit of teamwork and co-operation.

External link: The following links will take you to information on this entry on an external website. INVOLVE is not responsible for the content or the reliability of the external websites. Link to PubMed abstract

Related entry: Click to view

Categories: health
Identifying topics, prioritising and commissioning
impact on funding/commissioning
impact of public involvement
journal article

Date Entered: 2006/02/15

Date Edited: 2012/11/20

Additional Info: