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

References 

1. Boote J, Telford R, Cooper C. Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda. Health Policy. 2002;61:213–236
   • Abstract
   • Full Text
   • Full-Text PDF (213 KB)
   • CrossRef
2. Caron-Flinterman JF, Broerse JEW, Teerling J, Van Alst MLY, Klaasen S, Swart LE, et al. Patient participation in health research agenda setting: the case of asthma and COPD research in the Netherlands. Science and Public Policy. 2006;33(4):291–304
3. Oliver S, Clark Jones C. Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: developing an evidence-based approach. Health Technology Assessments. 2004;8(15):1–148
4. RGO . Patiëntenparticipatie in gezondheidsonderzoek (Patient participation in health research). Den Haag: Raad voor Gezondheids Onderzoek; 2007;
5. Abma T, Broerse J. Patient participation as dialogue: setting research agendas. Health Expectation; in press.
6. Abelson J, Forest PG, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E, Gauvin FP. Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science & Medicine. 2003;57:239–251
7. Caron-Flinterman F. A new voice in science. Patient participation in decision making on biomedical research. Zutphen: Wohrman Print Service; 2005;
8. Entwistle VA, Renfrew MJ, Yearley S, Forrester J, Lamont T. Lay perspectives: advantages for health research. British Medical Journal. 1998;316:463–466
9. Caron-Flinterman JF, Broerse JEW, Bunders JFG. The experiential knowledge of patients: a new resource for biomedical research?. Social Science and Medicine. 2005;60:2575–2584
10. Nordin I. Expert and non-expert knowledge in medical practice. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 2000;3:297–304
11. Telford R, Beverley CA, Cooper CL, Boote JD. Consumer involvement in health research: fact or fiction?. British Journal of Clinical Governance. 2002;7(2):92–103
12. Caron-Flinterman JF, Broerse JEW, Bunders JFG. Patient partnership in decision-making on biomedical research: changing the network. Science, Technology & Human Values. 2007;32(3):339–368
13. Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Fourth generation evaluation. Beverly Hills; 1989.
14. Stake RE. To evaluate an arts program. In:  Stake RE editors. Evaluating the arts in education: a responsive approach. Colombus Ohio: Merrill; 1975;p. 13–31
15. Stake RE. Standards-Based and Responsive Evaluation. Thousand Oaks: CA Sage; 2004;
16. Flinterman JF, Teclemariam-Mesbah R, Broerse JEW, Bunders JFG. Transdisciplinarity: the new challenge for biomedical research. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society. 2001;2:253–266
17. Greene JC, Abma TA. Responsive Evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation. 2001;92:1–105
18. Koch T. Implementation of a hermeneutic inquiry in nursing: philosophy, rigour and representation. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1996;24:174–184
    • MEDLINE
19. Van Rensen JML, De Haan MJM, Broerse JEW, Zweekhorst MBM, Hijlkema S, Raven M. Agenda wetenschappelijk brandwondenonderzoek 2007–2010. Het ‘BhURN-project’. Beverwijk en Amsterdam: Nederlandse Brandwonden Stichting en Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; 2007;
20. Caron-Flinterman JF, Broerse JEW, Teerling J, Bunders JFG. Patients’ priorities concerning health research: the case of asthma and COPD research in The Netherlands. Health Expectations. 2005;8(3):53–263
21. Elberse JE, Caron-Flinterman JF, De Cock-Buning T. Naar een gezamenlijke visie op onderzoek bij kinderen met een aangeboren hartafwijking. Amsterdam: Athena Institute: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; 2007;
22. Abma TA. Patient participation in health research. Research with and for people with spinal cord injuries. Qualitative Health Research. 2005;15(10):1–19