Benefits and Drawbacks of Including Consumer Reviewers in the Scientific Merit Review of Breast Cancer Research

Andejeski, Yvonne; Breslau, Erica S.; Hart, Elizabeth; Lythcott, Ngina; Alexander, Linda; Rich, Irene M.; Bisceglio, Isabelle; Smith, Helene S.; Visco, Fran

doi:10.1089/152460902753645263

Cited by 26 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While there have been few evaluations of the impact of people affected by cancer on review panels, an evaluation of the impact of having breast cancer survivors on a scientific review panel for the Department of Defence Breast Cancer Research Programme (Andejeski et al . 2002a,b) found that lay reviewers had a negligible effect on final research proposal scores.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Involving people affected by cancer in research: a review of literature

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the literature review was to find out why people affected by cancer have been involved in research; how they have been involved and the impact of their involvement. We used systematic methods to search for literature, applied inclusion and exclusion criteria, conducted a quality appraisal, selected relevant data from the included articles for analysis, and provided a narrative summary of these data. The literature shows that people affected by cancer, particularly women with breast cancer, have been involved in a range of research programmes, projects and initiatives especially in the USA, UK, Canada and Australia. Their involvement has impacted upon research design, accrual and response rates. There is increasing recognition of the need for an infrastructure, including formal recruitment procedures, training and mentoring, to support an agenda of involvement and a need to challenge the ethos of traditional research, which does not easily lend itself to this agenda. Further critique of the role of 'experiential knowledge' in research is required so that researchers and people affected by cancer can work in partnership.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Involving people affected by cancer in research: a review of literature

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although scientific and community reviewers bring unique perspectives, both groups need to have a common understanding of CEnR and the necessary skills and experience to evaluate CEnR proposals. Barriers to involving community members, patient advocates, and other stakeholders outside the scientific community in grant review have been documented and often include concern that scientists do not value community contributions, discomfort on the part of community members who are unfamiliar with scientific language and subject matter, and divergent perspectives on review criteria between scientist and public reviewers . To address these barriers, the NIH Council of Public Representatives created a framework and criteria for assessing community engagement in research proposals .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strengthening Community Involvement in Grant Review: Insights from the Community–University Research Partnership (CURES) Pilot Review Process

Paberzs

Piechowski

Debra

et al. 2014

Clinical Translational Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2007, the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR) at the University of Michigan received a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA). Within MICHR, the Community Engagement (CE) program supports partnership efforts between researchers, practitioners, and community-based organizations in specific focal communities throughout Michigan. A key component of the CE program is the Community Engagement Coordinating Council, a group that provides input and guidance on program priorities, strategic planning, and reviews pilot funding proposals for community-academic partnerships. This paper will describe a unique MICHR pilot funding mechanism for Community-University Research Partnerships (CURES) with an emphasis on the ways that community partners are involved in the review process, as well as the benefits, challenges, and insights gained over 5 years of pilot review. There is a growing need for community involvement and expertise in review of funding proposals for community-engaged research at both institutional and federal levels. The CURES pilot review process is one example of an institutional effort to engage community partners in university funding decisions and has demonstrated clear benefit toward accomplishing the aims of the CTSA. Clin Trans Sci 2014; Volume 7: 156-163

show abstract

“…8 Subsequently, patients and advocates for a number of diseases (e.g., breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, and prostate cancer) have increasingly raised ethical and policy issues in the context of scientific evaluation of research projects. 13 Large disease-targeted research initiatives such as TCGA may continue to blur traditional lines between public and scientific assessments of research priorities not only because of the initiative's prominence or expense but also because of its systematic plan. 13 Large disease-targeted research initiatives such as TCGA may continue to blur traditional lines between public and scientific assessments of research priorities not only because of the initiative's prominence or expense but also because of its systematic plan.…”

Section: Genomic Research and "Political Science"mentioning

confidence: 99%

Investments in Cancer Genomics: Who Benefits and Who Decides

Foster

Mulvihill

2006

Am J Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Cancer Genome Atlas--formerly the Human Cancer Genome Project--provides an opportunity for considering how social concerns about resource allocation are interrelated with practical decisions about specific research strategies--part of a continuing convergence between scientific and public evaluations of priorities for biomedical research funding. For example, the manner, order, and extent that The Cancer Genome Atlas selects tumor types and populations to be sampled will determine who benefits most from its findings. Those choices will be determined on the basis of both scientific and social values. By soliciting public involvement and conducting rigorous policy analysis in the design of large scientific projects such as The Cancer Genome Atlas, cancer researchers can help democratize the allocation of scientific resources and foster public confidence in biomedical research.

show abstract

Benefits and Drawbacks of Including Consumer Reviewers in the Scientific Merit Review of Breast Cancer Research

Abstract: As a result of these data, the DOD BCRP continues to embrace clarify the nature of collaborative participation in scientific merit review.

Cited by 26 publications

References 17 publications

Involving people affected by cancer in research: a review of literature

Involving people affected by cancer in research: a review of literature

Strengthening Community Involvement in Grant Review: Insights from the Community–University Research Partnership (CURES) Pilot Review Process

Investments in Cancer Genomics: Who Benefits and Who Decides

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About