Practical Incorporation of Stakeholder-Informed Ethics into Research Funding Decisions.

IF 0.8 4区 医学 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Merton Lee, Nicole Brandt, Carmen E Reyes, Daniel Mansour, Katie Maslow, Catherine Sarkisian
{"title":"Practical Incorporation of Stakeholder-Informed Ethics into Research Funding Decisions.","authors":"Merton Lee, Nicole Brandt, Carmen E Reyes, Daniel Mansour, Katie Maslow, Catherine Sarkisian","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Research funding has been criticized as biased against novel initiatives and lacking diversity, which leads to further disparities. Patient and stakeholder engagement could support research that goes beyond traditional paradigms and increases diversity. However, best practices to engage stakeholders in research, including funding decisions, continue to be developed. We report on the implementation of stakeholder input in two federally funded initiatives, one that seeks to advance research reducing disparities, and the other seeks to advance deprescribing research. Overall, the review process includes stakeholders as decision makers and supports their efforts through group discussion and other activities. Reconciling stakeholder input that may differ from scientific peer review is a challenge within the decision for funding. Lessons learned include balancing stakeholder and scientific assessments and including guidance on stakeholder engagement to grant awardees.</p>","PeriodicalId":46970,"journal":{"name":"Progress in Community Health Partnerships-Research Education and Action","volume":"18 3","pages":"389-396"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Progress in Community Health Partnerships-Research Education and Action","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research funding has been criticized as biased against novel initiatives and lacking diversity, which leads to further disparities. Patient and stakeholder engagement could support research that goes beyond traditional paradigms and increases diversity. However, best practices to engage stakeholders in research, including funding decisions, continue to be developed. We report on the implementation of stakeholder input in two federally funded initiatives, one that seeks to advance research reducing disparities, and the other seeks to advance deprescribing research. Overall, the review process includes stakeholders as decision makers and supports their efforts through group discussion and other activities. Reconciling stakeholder input that may differ from scientific peer review is a challenge within the decision for funding. Lessons learned include balancing stakeholder and scientific assessments and including guidance on stakeholder engagement to grant awardees.

将利益相关者知情的伦理观切实纳入研究资助决策。
研究资金被批评为偏向于新颖的举措,缺乏多样性,从而导致进一步的差异。患者和利益相关者的参与可以支持超越传统范式和增加多样性的研究。然而,让利益相关者参与研究(包括资助决策)的最佳实践仍有待开发。我们报告了在两项联邦政府资助的倡议中利益相关者意见的落实情况,其中一项倡议旨在推进减少差异的研究,另一项倡议旨在推进去处方化研究。总体而言,审查过程将利益相关者作为决策者,并通过小组讨论和其他活动支持他们的工作。利益相关者的意见可能不同于科学同行评审,如何协调利益相关者的意见是资助决策中的一项挑战。吸取的经验教训包括平衡利益相关者和科学评估,并为获得资助者提供利益相关者参与指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
65
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信