Burns
Volume 36, Issue 2 , Pages 217-231, March 2010

Involving burn survivors in agenda setting on burn research: An added value?

  • Jacqueline E.W. Broerse

      Affiliations

    • Athena Institute, VU university Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author at: Dept. Science Communication, Athena Institute, FALW, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • ,
  • Marjolein B.M. Zweekhorst

      Affiliations

    • Athena Institute, VU university Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • ,
  • Annemiek J.M.L. van Rensen

      Affiliations

    • PGO Support, The Netherlands
  • ,
  • Monique J.M. de Haan

      Affiliations

    • Dutch Burns Foundation, The Netherlands

Accepted 12 April 2009.

Abstract 

Background and aim

The role of burn survivors in burn research is usually restricted to being objects of study and beneficiaries of research results, while decision-making on research is traditionally the domain of a small group of experts, mainly scientists. In this article we compare the research priorities of burn survivors and professionals and investigate to what extent it is possible to come to a joint research agenda.

Methodology

The project followed the Dialogue Model for research agenda setting. Initially burn survivors and professionals were consulted separately and group-specific lists of research priorities were established, using a literature survey, exploratory interviews (n=10), focus groups (n=58), a questionnaire (n=224) and Delphi rounds (n=12). Subsequently, in a dialogue meeting burn survivors and professionals presented and discussed their priorities, developed one integrated list, and prioritized the 15 most important topics on this list.

Results

Considerable overlap was observed between the research priorities of burn survivors and professionals, particularly with respect to biomedical and clinical research on wound healing and scar management. However, differences were also observed, e.g. treatment of itching and oedema on scars and donor places.

Conclusion

The model proved useful in eliciting research priorities from both professionals and burn survivors, and in stimulating a meaningful dialogue between these groups. The involvement of burn survivors identified burn research areas that are currently not the focus of research in The Netherlands.

Keywords: Burns, Research agenda, Patient participation, Focus groups, Delphi round, Dialogue meeting

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0305-4179(09)00115-6

doi:10.1016/j.burns.2009.04.004

Burns
Volume 36, Issue 2 , Pages 217-231, March 2010