IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v44y2017i3p303-316..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lyme disease in the Dutch policy context: patient consultation in government research agenda setting

Author

Listed:
  • Willemijn M. den Oudendammer
  • Jacqueline E.W. Broerse

Abstract

Prevalence of Lyme disease (LD) is increasing in the Netherlands. The Dutch Association for Lyme Disease Patients (NVLP) presented a petition to the Dutch Parliament for more LD research and political attention. The Parliament requested advice from the Health Council of the Netherlands, which among others initiated a stakeholder consultation process to identify experiences and research needs. This article presents patients’ consultation results, including their research agenda, and compares it to the advisory report. Patients ascribed high research priority to improved diagnostic tools, new treatment options, and improving fundamental knowledge. Including patients’ research needs in the advisory report reflected patients’ perspectives in agenda setting to be valued by political and patient institutions. Some issues were not included, leading to criticism by the NVLP. This study suggests that organising a multi-stakeholder dialogue, particularly focusing on further exploring differences in opinion and creating mutual understanding, might have a beneficial effect on stakeholder satisfaction.

Suggested Citation

  • Willemijn M. den Oudendammer & Jacqueline E.W. Broerse, 2017. "Lyme disease in the Dutch policy context: patient consultation in government research agenda setting," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(3), pages 303-316.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:44:y:2017:i:3:p:303-316.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scw056
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:44:y:2017:i:3:p:303-316.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.