↓ Skip to main content

Development of a standard form for assessing research grant applications from the perspective of patients

Overview of attention for article published in Research Involvement and Engagement, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
52 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Development of a standard form for assessing research grant applications from the perspective of patients
Published in
Research Involvement and Engagement, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40900-018-0112-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maarten de Wit, Truus Teunissen, Lieke van Houtum, Margriet Weide

Abstract

Health-research funding organizations are increasingly involving patient representatives in the assessment of grant applications. However, there is no consensus on an appropriate scope or definition of the patient perspective and the eligibility of potential patient reviewers to take on this role. The aim of our study is to develop a consensus-based template for patient reviewers to assess research grant applications from the patients' perspective. We also defined a glossary of terms and definitions to help the patient reviewers in their assessment role. Together with members of the Dutch Association of Health Care Funds (SGF) we developed an assessment form for patient reviewers following constant comparative analysis of existing review forms, a survey among all stakeholders, testing in three pilot training sessions, and a structured consensus process. A small SGF working group collected and analysed 20 patient assessment forms, used by 12 health foundations and one patient organization. One systematic literature review was included. By comparing and discussing items and assessment categories in subsequent workshops, a first template form was developed. This version was electronically distributed among the members of 10 patient panels of whom 67 patient reviewers filled in the survey. A second version was then presented at a final working group meeting where consensus was reached about a template with 12 categories covering 41 items important for patients. A brochure for patient reviewers, a guide for panel coordinators and a glossary were developed to accompany future implementation of the template. A template for patient reviewers to assess research grant applications is now available, based on the consensus of 21 Dutch health foundations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 52 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 25%
Student > Master 2 13%
Other 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 3 19%
Unknown 4 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 31%
Social Sciences 2 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Environmental Science 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 5 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 September 2018.
All research outputs
#1,200,977
of 25,398,331 outputs
Outputs from Research Involvement and Engagement
#95
of 512 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,199
of 345,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Involvement and Engagement
#5
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,398,331 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 512 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 345,628 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.