在乳腺癌研究的科学价值评估中纳入消费者评审的利弊。

Y. Andejeski, Erica S. Breslau, E. Hart, N. Lythcott, L. Alexander, I. Rich, I. Bisceglio, H. Smith, F. Visco
{"title":"在乳腺癌研究的科学价值评估中纳入消费者评审的利弊。","authors":"Y. Andejeski, Erica S. Breslau, E. Hart, N. Lythcott, L. Alexander, I. Rich, I. Bisceglio, H. Smith, F. Visco","doi":"10.1089/152460902753645263","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nThis study assessed participant opinions about inclusion of breast cancer survivors as lay representatives in a scientific and technical merit review of proposals for the 1995 Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program (DOD BCRP).\n\n\nMETHODS\nThe evaluation employed a prepanel and postpanel survey design, which was intended to elicit feedback about attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs toward collaborative consumer and scientist participation in scientific merit review. Qualitative methods were used to describe the consumers' and scientists' responses, to explore the significance of this interaction, and to gain an understanding of the benefits and disadvantages of bringing these participants together.\n\n\nRESULTS\nBoth groups were initially troubled about the consumers' lack of scientific background and questioned their qualifications and preparation for participation in a scientific panel. In particular, consumers were concerned that their judgments would not be taken seriously by scientists, a concern somewhat lessened by participation. After the meeting, scientists viewed the consumers as hard-working, dedicated survivors and advocates and endorsed the presence of carefully chosen lay panel members. Scientists were troubled that consumers potentially would have an impact on voting and on the subsequent scoring of proposals, a concern that was not validated by quantitative findings.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nAs a result of these data, the DOD BCRP continues to embrace clarify the nature of collaborative participation in scientific merit review.","PeriodicalId":80044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of women's health & gender-based medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"25","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Benefits and drawbacks of including consumer reviewers in the scientific merit review of breast cancer research.\",\"authors\":\"Y. Andejeski, Erica S. Breslau, E. Hart, N. Lythcott, L. Alexander, I. Rich, I. Bisceglio, H. Smith, F. Visco\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/152460902753645263\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\nThis study assessed participant opinions about inclusion of breast cancer survivors as lay representatives in a scientific and technical merit review of proposals for the 1995 Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program (DOD BCRP).\\n\\n\\nMETHODS\\nThe evaluation employed a prepanel and postpanel survey design, which was intended to elicit feedback about attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs toward collaborative consumer and scientist participation in scientific merit review. Qualitative methods were used to describe the consumers' and scientists' responses, to explore the significance of this interaction, and to gain an understanding of the benefits and disadvantages of bringing these participants together.\\n\\n\\nRESULTS\\nBoth groups were initially troubled about the consumers' lack of scientific background and questioned their qualifications and preparation for participation in a scientific panel. In particular, consumers were concerned that their judgments would not be taken seriously by scientists, a concern somewhat lessened by participation. After the meeting, scientists viewed the consumers as hard-working, dedicated survivors and advocates and endorsed the presence of carefully chosen lay panel members. Scientists were troubled that consumers potentially would have an impact on voting and on the subsequent scoring of proposals, a concern that was not validated by quantitative findings.\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSIONS\\nAs a result of these data, the DOD BCRP continues to embrace clarify the nature of collaborative participation in scientific merit review.\",\"PeriodicalId\":80044,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of women's health & gender-based medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2002-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"25\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of women's health & gender-based medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/152460902753645263\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of women's health & gender-based medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/152460902753645263","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 25

摘要

本研究评估了参与者对1995年美国国防部乳腺癌研究计划(DOD BCRP)的科学和技术价值审查提案中纳入乳腺癌幸存者作为非专业代表的意见。方法采用面板前和面板后调查设计,旨在了解消费者和科学家参与科学价值评估的态度、看法和信念。我们使用定性方法来描述消费者和科学家的反应,探索这种互动的意义,并了解将这些参与者聚集在一起的好处和缺点。结果两组人最初都对消费者缺乏科学背景感到困扰,并质疑他们参加科学小组的资格和准备。特别是,消费者担心他们的判断不会被科学家认真对待,这种担心在某种程度上因参与而减轻。会议结束后,科学家们将消费者视为勤劳、献身的幸存者和倡导者,并认可了精心挑选的非专业小组成员的存在。科学家们担心,消费者可能会对投票和随后的提案评分产生影响,这种担忧没有得到定量研究结果的证实。结论:根据这些数据,国防部BCRP继续致力于澄清科学价值评审中协作参与的性质。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Benefits and drawbacks of including consumer reviewers in the scientific merit review of breast cancer research.
BACKGROUND This study assessed participant opinions about inclusion of breast cancer survivors as lay representatives in a scientific and technical merit review of proposals for the 1995 Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program (DOD BCRP). METHODS The evaluation employed a prepanel and postpanel survey design, which was intended to elicit feedback about attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs toward collaborative consumer and scientist participation in scientific merit review. Qualitative methods were used to describe the consumers' and scientists' responses, to explore the significance of this interaction, and to gain an understanding of the benefits and disadvantages of bringing these participants together. RESULTS Both groups were initially troubled about the consumers' lack of scientific background and questioned their qualifications and preparation for participation in a scientific panel. In particular, consumers were concerned that their judgments would not be taken seriously by scientists, a concern somewhat lessened by participation. After the meeting, scientists viewed the consumers as hard-working, dedicated survivors and advocates and endorsed the presence of carefully chosen lay panel members. Scientists were troubled that consumers potentially would have an impact on voting and on the subsequent scoring of proposals, a concern that was not validated by quantitative findings. CONCLUSIONS As a result of these data, the DOD BCRP continues to embrace clarify the nature of collaborative participation in scientific merit review.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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