| Autor: |
Atsushi Kogetsu, Moeko Isono, Tatsuki Aikyo, Junichi Furuta, Dai Goto, Nao Hamakawa, Michihiro Hide, Risa Hori, Noriko Ikeda, Keiko Inoi, Naomi Kawagoe, Tomoya Kubota, Shirou Manabe, Yasushi Matsumura, Koji Matsuyama, Tomoko Nakai, Ikuko Nakao, Yuki Saito, Midori Senoo, Masanori P. Takahashi, Toshihiro Takeda, Megumi Takei, Katsuto Tamai, Akio Tanaka, Yasuhiro Torashima, Yuya Tsuchida, Chisato Yamasaki, Beverley Anne Yamamoto, Kazuto Kato |
| Jazyk: |
angličtina |
| Rok vydání: |
2023 |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
Research Involvement and Engagement, Vol 9, Iss 1, Pp 1-21 (2023) |
| Druh dokumentu: |
article |
| ISSN: |
2056-7529 |
| DOI: |
10.1186/s40900-023-00515-5 |
| Popis: |
Abstract Background Although stakeholder involvement in policymaking is attracting attention in the fields of medicine and healthcare, a practical methodology has not yet been established. Rare-disease policy, specifically research priority setting for the allocation of limited research resources, is an area where evidence generation through stakeholder involvement is expected to be effective. We generated evidence for rare-disease policymaking through stakeholder involvement and explored effective collaboration among stakeholders. Methods We constructed a space called ‘Evidence-generating Commons’, where patients, family members, researchers, and former policymakers can share their knowledge and experiences and engage in continual deliberations on evidence generation. Ten rare diseases were consequently represented. In the ‘Commons’, 25 consecutive workshops were held predominantly online, from 2019 to 2021. These workshops focused on (1) clarification of difficulties faced by rare-disease patients, (2) development and selection of criteria for priority setting, and (3) priority setting through the application of the criteria. For the first step, an on-site workshop using sticky notes was held. The data were analysed based on KJ method. For the second and third steps, workshops on specific themes were held to build consensus. The workshop agendas and methods were modified based on participants’ feedback. Results The ‘Commons’ was established with 43 participants, resulting in positive effects such as capacity building, opportunities for interactions, mutual understanding, and empathy among the participants. The difficulties faced by patients with rare diseases were classified into 10 categories. Seven research topics were identified as priority issues to be addressed including ‘impediments to daily life’, ‘financial burden’, ‘anxiety’, and ‘burden of hospital visits’. This was performed by synthesising the results of the application of the two criteria that were particularly important to strengthen future research on rare diseases. We also clarified high-priority research topics by using criteria valued more by patients and family members than by researchers and former policymakers, and criteria with specific perspectives. Conclusion We generated evidence for policymaking in the field of rare diseases. This study’s insights into stakeholder involvement can enhance evidence-informed policymaking. We engaged in comprehensive discussions with policymakers regarding policy implementation and planned analysis of the participants’ experiences in this project. |
| Databáze: |
Directory of Open Access Journals |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full text from SpringerLink