Methods for engaging stakeholders in comparative effectiveness research: a patient-centered approach to improving diabetes care.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Schmittdiel JA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5100811 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Methods for engaging stakeholders in comparative effectiveness research: a patient-centered approach to improving diabetes care.
Schmittdiel Julie A JA Desai Jay J Schroeder Emily B EB Paolino Andrea R AR Nichols Gregory A GA Lawrence Jean M JM O'Connor Patrick J PJ Ohnsorg Kris A KA Newton Katherine M KM Steiner John F JF
Healthcare (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 20150313 2
Engaging stakeholders in the research process has the potential to improve quality of care and the patient care experience. Online patient community surveys can elicit important topic areas for comparative effectiveness research. Stakeholder meetings with substantial patient representation, as well as representation from health care delivery systems and research funding agencies, are a valuable tool for selecting and refining pilot research and quality improvement projects. Giving patient stakeh ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Complex health interventions (CHIs) are increasingly studied in comparative effectiveness research (CER), and there is a need for improvements in CHI research practices. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Methodology Committee (MC) launched an effort in 2016 to develop formal guidance on this topic. OBJECTIVE:To develop a set of minimal standards for scientifically valid, transparent, and reproducible CER studies of CHIs. The standards are intended to apply to research examining a broad range of healthcare interventions including delivery system, behavior change, and other non-pharmacological interventions. METHODS:We conducted a literature review, reviewed existing methods guidance, and developed standards through an iterative process involving the MC, two panels of external research methods experts, and a 60-day public comment period. The final standards were approved by the PCORI MC and adopted by the PCORI Board of Governors on April 30, 2018. RESULTS:The final standards include the following: (1) fully describe the intervention and comparator and define their core functions, (2) specify the hypothesized causal pathways and their theoretical basis, (3) specify how adaptations to the form of the intervention and comparator will be allowed and recorded, (4) plan and describe a process evaluation, and (5) select patient outcomes informed by the causal pathway. DISCUSSION:The new standards offer three major contributions to research: (1) they provide a simple framework to help investigators address the major methodological features of a CHI study, (2) they emphasize the importance of the causal model and the need to understand how a CHI achieves its effects rather than simply measuring these effects, and (3) they require description of a CHI using the concepts of core functions and forms. While these standards apply formally to PCORI-funded CER studies, they have broad applicability.
| S-EPMC7652976 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe used various methods for identifying and prioritizing patient-centered outcomes (PCOs) for comparative effectiveness research (CER).MethodsWe considered potential PCOs ("benefits" and "harms") related to (1) gabapentin for neuropathic pain and (2) quetiapine for bipolar depression. Part 1 (April 2014 to March 2015): we searched for PCO research and core outcome sets (COSs). We conducted electronic searches of bibliographic databases and key websites and examined FDA prescribing information and reports of clinical trials and systematic reviews. We asked patient and clinician co-investigators to identify PCOs. Part 2 (not part of our original study protocol): in 2015, we surveyed members of The TMJ Association, Ltd., a patient group associated with temporomandibular disorders (4130 invitations sent). Participants prioritized (1) the importance of six potential benefits and (2) 21 potential harms selected by the investigators in part 1, using stated preference methods. We calculated descriptive statistics.ResultsIn part 1, we identified a COS for pain, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) recommendations. The COS identified several important benefits, but it lacked specific recommendations about which potential harms to include in CER. We did not identify a COS for bipolar depression. Research reports, prescribing information, and patient co-investigators helped identify but not prioritize outcomes. We abandoned our electronic search for PCO research because we found it would be resource-intensive and yield few relevant reports. In part 2, surveying patients was useful for prioritizing PCOs. Members of The TMJ Association, Ltd., completed the survey (N =?746) and successfully prioritized both benefits and harms. Participants did not identify many benefits other than those we identified in part 1; several participants identified additional harms.ConclusionsThese exploratory results could inform future research about identifying and prioritizing PCOs. We found that stakeholder co-investigators and research reports contributed to identifying PCOs; surveying a patient group contributed to prioritizing PCOs. Prioritizing potential harms was particularly challenging because there are many more potential harms than potential benefits. Methods for identifying and prioritizing potential benefits for CER might not be appropriate for harms. Further research is needed to determine the generalizability of these results.
| S-EPMC6047482 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This project compared the effectiveness of two evidence-based models of culturally competent diabetes health promotion: The Diabetes Self-Management Support Empowerment Model (DSMS), and The Chronic Care Model (CCM). Our primary outcome was improvement in patient capacity for diabetes self-management as measured by the Diabetes Knowledge Questionnaire (DKQ) and the Patient Activation Measure (PAM). Our secondary outcome was patient success at diabetes self-management as measured by improvement in A1c, depression sores using the PHQ-9, and Body Mass Index (BMI). We also gathered data on the cultural competence of the program using the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Cultural Competence Set (CAHPS-CC). We compared patient outcomes in two existing sites in Albuquerque, New Mexico that serve a large population of Latino diabetes patients from low-income households. Participants were enrolled as dyads-a patient participant (n=226) and a social support participant (n=226). Outcomes over time and by program were analyzed using longitudinal linear mixed modeling, adjusted for patient participant demographic characteristics and other potential confounding covariates. Secondary outcomes were also adjusted for potential confounders. Interactions with both time and program helped to assess outcomes. This study did not find a difference between the two sites with respect to the primary outcome measures and only one of the three secondary outcomes showed differential results. The main difference between programs was that depression decreased more for CCM than for DSMS. An exploratory, subgroup analysis revealed that at CCM, patient participants with a very high A1c (>10) demonstrated a clinically meaningful decrease. However, given the higher cultural competence rating for the CCM, statistically significant improvement in depression, and the importance of social support to the patients, results suggest that a culturally and contextually situated diabetes self-management and education program design may deliver benefit for patients, especially for patients with higher A1c levels.
| S-EPMC9915824 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The mission of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is to fund the production of high-quality evidence that will enable patients and clinicians to make informed, personalized healthcare decisions. Since 2012, the PCORI has invested $177 million in patient-centered comparative effectiveness research (CER) that specifically targets the health needs of older adults, with additional relevant studies in its broader portfolio. Developing the PCORI's research portfolio has provided us with significant insights into what factors to consider when conducting CER in older adult populations. When comparing the net benefit of two or more interventions for older adults, investigators should consider the following: absolute risk difference, competing risks, life expectancy, the difference between chronologic and physiologic age, the importance of patient preferences, and other potential drivers of variable treatment effects. Investigators should also engage older adults and their caregivers as partners throughout the research process. Their input helps to identify key outcomes of interest and insights about the conduct of the research. As the PCORI continues to support research that addresses the healthcare decisions of the rapidly growing older adult population, it needs to partner with patients and researchers to identify the most important questions to address. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:21-28, 2019.
| S-EPMC7379603 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We conducted a review of the peer-reviewed literature since 2003 to catalogue reported methods of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness research and patient-centered outcomes research.We worked with stakeholders before, during and after the review was conducted to: define the primary and key research questions; conduct the literature search; screen titles, abstracts and articles; abstract data from the articles; and analyze the data. The literature search yielded 2,062 abstracts. The review was conducted on 70 articles that reported on stakeholder engagement in individual research projects or programs.Reports of stakeholder engagement are highly variable in content and quality. We found frequent engagement with patients, modestly frequent engagement with clinicians, and infrequent engagement with stakeholders in other key decision-making groups across the healthcare system. Stakeholder engagement was more common in earlier (prioritization) than in later (implementation and dissemination) stages of research. The roles and activities of stakeholders were highly variable across research and program reports.To improve on the quality and content of reporting, we developed a 7-Item Stakeholder Engagement Reporting Questionnaire. We recommend three directions for future research: 1) descriptive research on stakeholder-engagement in research; 2) evaluative research on the impact of stakeholder engagement on the relevance, transparency and adoption of research; and 3) development and validation of tools that can be used to support stakeholder engagement in future work.
| S-EPMC4242886 | biostudies-other
Project description:AimTo present the methods and outcomes of stakeholder engagement in the development of interventions for children presenting to the emergency department (ED) for uncontrolled asthma.MethodsWe engaged stakeholders (caregivers, physicians, nurses, administrators) from six EDs in a three-phase process to: define design requirements; prototype and refine; and evaluate.ResultsInterviews among 28 stakeholders yielded themes regarding in-home asthma management practices and ED discharge experiences. Quantitative and qualitative evaluation showed strong preference for the new discharge tool over current tools.ConclusionEngaging end-users in contextual inquiry resulted in CAPE (CHICAGO Action Plan after ED discharge), a new stakeholder-balanced discharge tool, which is being tested in a multicenter comparative effectiveness trial.
| S-EPMC4900169 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The goal of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) is to help patients and those who care for them make informed decisions about healthcare. However, the clinical research enterprise has not involved patients, caregivers, and other nonproviders routinely in the process of prioritizing, designing, and conducting research in hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). To address this need the National Marrow Donor Program/Be The Match engaged patients, caregivers, researchers, and other key stakeholders in a 2-year project with the goal of setting a PCOR agenda for the HCT community. Through a collaborative process we identified 6 major areas of interest: (1) patient, caregiver, and family education and support; (2) emotional, cognitive, and social health; (3) physical health and fatigue; (4) sexual health and relationships; (5) financial burden; and (6) models of survivorship care delivery. We then organized into multistakeholder working groups to identify gaps in knowledge and make priority recommendations for critical research to fill those gaps. Gaps varied by working group, but all noted that a historical lack of consistency in measures use and patient populations made it difficult to compare outcomes across studies and urged investigators to incorporate uniform measures and homogenous patient groups in future research. Some groups advised that additional pre-emptory work is needed before conducting prospective interventional trials, whereas others were ready to proceed with comparative clinical effectiveness research studies. This report presents the results of this major initiative and makes recommendations by working group on priority questions for PCOR in HCT.
| S-EPMC5993588 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We need more research projects that partner and engage with patients and family members as team members. Doing this requires that patients and family members set research priorities and fully participate in research teams. Models for this patient and family member engagement as research partners can help increase patient centered outcomes research. In this article, we describe how we have successfully engaged patients with kidney disease and family members as Co-Investigators on a 5-year research project testing a health system intervention to improve kidney disease care. Background This article describes a method for successful engagement of patients and family members in all stages of a 5-year comparative effectiveness research trial to improve transitions of care for patients from chronic kidney disease to end-stage kidney disease. Methods This project utilized the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute's conceptual model for engagement with patients and family members. We conducted a qualitative analysis of grant planning meetings to determine patient and family member Co-Investigators' priorities for research and to include these engagement efforts in the research design. Patient and family member Co-Investigators partnered in writing this paper. Results Patients and family members were successfully engaged in remote and in-person meetings to contribute actively to research planning and implementation stages. Three patient-centered themes emerged from our data related to engagement that informed our research plan: kidney disease treatment decision-making, care transitions from chronic to end-stage kidney disease, and patient-centered outcomes. Conclusions The model we have employed represents a new paradigm for kidney disease research in the United States, with patients and family members engaged as full research partners. As a result, the study tests an intervention that directly responds to their needs, and it prioritizes the collection of outcomes data most relevant to patient and family member Co-Investigators. Trial registration NCT02722382 .
| S-EPMC7604920 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe purpose of this formative study was to assess barriers and facilitators to participation of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) patients in clinical research to solicit specific feedback on perceived acceptability and feasibility of research methods to inform creation of a multisite longitudinal cohort of primary care patients engaged in care at two community health centers.MethodBetween September-November 2018, four focus groups (FGs) were convened at two community health centers in Boston, MA and New York, NY (N = 28 participants across all 4 groups; 11 in Boston and 17 in New York). FG guides asked about patient outreach, acceptability of study methods and measures, and ideas for study retention. FGs were facilitated by TGD study staff, lasted approximately 90 min in duration, were audio recorded, and then transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription service. Thematic analyses were conducted by two independent analysts applying a constant comparison method. Consistency and consensus were achieved across code creation and application aided by Dedoose software.ResultsParticipants were a mean age of 33.9 years (SD 12.3; Range 18-66). Participants varied in gender identity with 4 (14.3%) men, 3 (10.7%) women, 8 (28.6%) transgender men, 10 (35.7%) transgender women, and 3 (10.7%) nonbinary. Eight (26.6%) were Latinx, 5 (17.9%) Black, 3 (10.7%) Asian, 3 (10.7%) another race, and 5 (17.9%) multiracial. Motivators and facilitators to participation were: research creating community, research led by TGD staff, compensation, research integrated into healthcare, research applicable to TGD and non-TGD people, and research helping TGD communities. Barriers were: being research/healthcare averse, not identifying as TGD, overlooking questioning individuals, research coming from a 'cisgender lens", distrust of how the research will be used, research not being accessible to TGD people, and research being exploitative.ConclusionThough similarities emerged between the perspectives of TGD people and research citing perspectives of other underserved populations, there are barriers and facilitators to research which are unique to TGD populations. It is important for TGD people to be involved as collaborators in all aspects of research that concerns them.
| S-EPMC8487157 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Comparative effectiveness research (CER) in genomic medicine (GM) measures the clinical utility of using genomic information to guide clinical care in comparison to appropriate alternatives. We summarized findings of high-quality systematic reviews that compared the analytic and clinical validity and clinical utility of GM tests. We focused on clinical utility findings to summarize CER-derived evidence about GM and identify evidence gaps and future research needs. We abstracted key elements of study design, GM interventions, results, and study quality ratings from 21 systematic reviews published in 2010 through 2015. More than half (N = 13) of the reviews were of cancer-related tests. All reviews identified potentially important clinical applications of the GM interventions, but most had significant methodological weaknesses that largely precluded any conclusions about clinical utility. Twelve reviews discussed the importance of patient-centered outcomes, although few described evidence about the impact of genomic medicine on these outcomes. In summary, we found a very limited body of evidence about the effect of using genomic tests on health outcomes and many evidence gaps for CER to address.Genet Med advance online publication 13 April 2017.
| S-EPMC5629101 | biostudies-literature