Dataset Information

Getting our priorities straight: a novel framework for stakeholder-informed prioritization of cancer genomics research.

ABSTRACT: Prioritization of translational research on genomic tests is critically important given the rapid pace of innovation in genomics. The goal of this study was to evaluate a stakeholder-informed priority-setting framework in cancer genomics.An external stakeholder advisory group including patients/consumers, payers, clinicians, and test developers used a modified Delphi approach to prioritize six candidate cancer genomic technologies during a 1-day meeting. Nine qualitative priority-setting criteria were considered. We used a directed, qualitative content-analysis approach to investigate the themes of the meeting discussion.Stakeholders primarily discussed six of the original nine criteria: clinical benefits, population health impacts, economic impacts, analytical and clinical validity, clinical trial implementation and feasibility, and market factors. Several new priority-setting criteria were identified from the workshop transcript, including "patient-reported outcomes," "clinical trial ethics," and "trial recruitment." The new criteria were incorporated with prespecified criteria to develop a novel priority-setting framework.This study highlights key criteria that stakeholders can consider when prioritizing comparative effectiveness research for cancer genomic applications. Applying an explicit priority-setting framework to inform investment in comparative effectiveness research can help to ensure that critical factors are weighed when deciding between many potential research questions and trial designs.

SUBMITTER: Esmail LC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4479129 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Getting our priorities straight: a novel framework for stakeholder-informed prioritization of cancer genomics research.

Esmail Laura C LC Roth Josh J Rangarao Sneha S Carlson Josh J JJ Thariani Rahber R Ramsey Scott D SD Veenstra David L DL Deverka Patricia P

Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics 20121004 2

<h4>Purpose</h4>Prioritization of translational research on genomic tests is critically important given the rapid pace of innovation in genomics. The goal of this study was to evaluate a stakeholder-informed priority-setting framework in cancer genomics.<h4>Methods</h4>An external stakeholder advisory group including patients/consumers, payers, clinicians, and test developers used a modified Delphi approach to prioritize six candidate cancer genomic technologies during a 1-day meeting. Nine qual ...[more]

PMID: 23037935

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to partner with stakeholders to identify gaps in care for persons living with dementia and their family caregivers and from this list, identify priorities for dementia care research.MethodsUsing a community-engaged research approach, a Stakeholder Advisory Council (SAC) consisting of diverse membership including persons living with dementia and family caregivers was convened. Through our work with the SAC, along with input from the wider network through a symposium, webinars, and an online learning community, gaps in dementia care and a list of topics for dementia care research was generated. This list was reduced to 46 topics for dementia care research and sent to stakeholders (persons living with dementia, family caregivers, and health/social care professionals in dementia care) to be prioritized by rating each of the 46 topics as "Not so important," "Important," or "Very important." Priorities for dementia care were summarized by frequencies and proportions.ResultsA total of 186 participants completed the survey from August through October 2020, including 23 (12.4%) persons living with dementia, 101 (54.3%) family caregivers, and 62 (33.3%) health/social care professionals. Consistent across stakeholder groups was the focus on research on how best to support families following a diagnosis of dementia. Among persons living with dementia, research focused on support for continuing to live in their own homes was ranked as the highest priority, rated by 91.3% as "Very Important". High priority research areas for family caregivers included interventions to slow cognitive decline (76.3%) as well as non-pharmacological approaches to manage behavioral symptoms (74.7%). The highest priority research topics for health/social care professionals were focused on the diagnosis including benefits of an early diagnosis (71.4%), how best to deliver the diagnosis (70.9%), and supports needed following a diagnosis (78.6%).ConclusionsThis project draws on the strengths of its multi-stakeholder perspective to support patient-centered outcomes research. Findings are intended to inform those who conduct research and those who fund research about which research topics stakeholders believe are most important and thus have greatest potential to improve the quality of life among people living with dementia and their families.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Zoonotic diseases account for over 60% of all communicable diseases causing illness in humans and 75% of recently emerging infectious diseases. As limited resources are available for the control and prevention of zoonotic diseases, it is necessary to prioritize diseases in order to direct resources into those with the greatest needs. The selection of criteria for prioritization has traditionally been on the basis of expert opinion; however, details of the methods used to identify criteria from expert opinion often are not published and a full range of criteria may not be captured by expert opinion. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:This study used six focus groups to identify criteria for the prioritization of zoonotic diseases in Canada. Focus groups included people from the public, animal health professionals and human health professionals. A total of 59 criteria were identified for prioritizing zoonotic diseases. Human-related criteria accounted for the highest proportion of criteria identified (55%), followed by animal-related criteria (26%) then pathogen/disease-related criteria (19%). Similarities and differences were observed in the identification and scoring of criteria for disease prioritization between groups; the public groups were strongly influenced by the individual-level of disease burden, the responsibility of the scientific community in disease prioritization and the experiences of recent events while the professional groups were influenced by the societal- and population-level of disease burden and political and public pressure. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE:This was the first study to describe a mixed semi-quantitative and qualitative approach to deriving criteria for disease prioritization. This was also the first study to involve the opinion of the general public regarding disease prioritization. The number of criteria identified highlights the difficulty in prioritizing zoonotic diseases. The method presented in this paper has formulated a comprehensive list of criteria that can be used to inform future disease prioritization studies.

Project description:Priority-setting in health is risky and challenging, particularly in resource-constrained settings. It is not simply a narrow technical exercise, and involves the mobilisation of a wide range of capacities among stakeholders - not only the technical capacity to "do" research in economic evaluations. Using the Individuals, Nodes, Networks and Environment (INNE) framework, we identify those stakeholders, whose capacity needs will vary along the evidence-to-policy continuum. Policymakers and healthcare managers require the capacity to commission and use relevant evidence (including evidence of clinical and cost-effectiveness, and of social values); academics need to understand and respond to decision-makers' needs to produce relevant research. The health system at all levels will need institutional capacity building to incentivise routine generation and use of evidence. Knowledge brokers, including priority-setting agencies (such as England's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and Health Interventions and Technology Assessment Program, Thailand) and the media can play an important role in facilitating engagement and knowledge transfer between the various actors. Especially at the outset but at every step, it is critical that patients and the public understand that trade-offs are inherent in priority-setting, and careful efforts should be made to engage them, and to hear their views throughout the process. There is thus no single approach to capacity building; rather a spectrum of activities that recognises the roles and skills of all stakeholders. A range of methods, including formal and informal training, networking and engagement, and support through collaboration on projects, should be flexibly employed (and tailored to specific needs of each country) to support institutionalisation of evidence-informed priority-setting. Finally, capacity building should be a two-way process; those who build capacity should also attend to their own capacity development in order to sustain and improve impact.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Biomedical research is influenced by many factors, including the involvement of stakeholder groups invested in research outcomes. Stakeholder involvement in research efforts raise questions of justice as their specific interests and motivations play a role in directing research resources that ultimately produce knowledge shaping how different conditions (and affected individuals) are understood and treated by society. This issue is highly relevant to child psychiatry research where diagnostic criteria and treatment strategies are often controversial. Biological similarities and stakeholder differences between attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) provide an opportunity to explore this issue by comparing research foci and stakeholder involvement in these conditions. METHODS:A subset of ADHD and ASD research articles published between 1970-2010 were randomly selected from the PubMed database and coded for research focus, funding source(s), and author-reported conflicts of interest (COIs). Chi-square analyses were performed to identify differences between and within ADHD and ASD research across time. RESULTS:The proportion of ADHD research dedicated to basic, description, and treatment research was roughly similar and remained stable over time, while ASD research showed a significant increase in basic research over the past decade. Government was the primary research funder for both conditions, but for-profit funders were a notable presence in ADHD research, while joint-funding efforts between non-profit and government funders were a notable presence in ASD research. Lastly, COIs were noted more frequently in ADHD than in ASD research. CONCLUSIONS:Our study shows significant differences in research foci and funding sources between the conditions, and identifies the specific involvement of for-profit and non-profit groups in ADHD and ASD, respectively. Our findings highlight the relationship between stakeholders outside the research community and research trajectories and suggest that examinations of these relationships must be included in broader considerations of biomedical research ethics.

Project description:BackgroundThe landscape of clinical research has evolved over the past decade. With technological advances, the practice of using electronic informed consent (eIC) has emerged. However, a number of challenges hinder the successful and widespread deployment of eIC in clinical research. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the views of various stakeholders on the potential advantages and challenges of eIC.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 39 participants from 5 stakeholder groups from across 11 European countries. The stakeholder groups included physicians, patient organization representatives, regulator representatives, ethics committee members, and pharmaceutical industry representatives, and all were involved in clinical research. Interviews were analyzed using the framework method.ResultsInterviewees identified that a powerful feature of eIC is its personalized approach as it may increase participant empowerment. However, they identified several ethical and practical challenges, such as ensuring research participants are not overloaded with information and offering the same options to research participants who would prefer a paper-based informed consent rather than eIC. According to the interviewees, eIC has the potential to establish efficient long-term interactions between the research participants and the research team in order to keep the participants informed during and after the study. Interviewees emphasized that a personal interaction with the research team is of utmost importance and this cannot be replaced by an electronic platform. In addition, interviewees across the stakeholder groups supported the idea of having a harmonized eIC approach across the European Member States.ConclusionsInterviewees reported a range of design and implementation challenges which needs to be overcome to foster innovation in informing research participants and obtaining their consent electronically. It was considered important that the implementation of eIC runs alongside the face-to-face contact between research participants and the research team. Moreover, interviewees expect that eIC could offer the opportunity to enable a personalized approach and to strengthen continuous communication over time. If successfully implemented, eIC may facilitate the engagement of research participants in clinical research.

Dataset Information

Getting our priorities straight: a novel framework for stakeholder-informed prioritization of cancer genomics research.

Publications

Getting our priorities straight: a novel framework for stakeholder-informed prioritization of cancer genomics research.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets