Dataset Information

Engaging multi-stakeholder perspectives to identify dementia care research priorities.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The 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.

Methods

Using 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.

Results

A 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%).

Conclusions

This 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.

SUBMITTER: Patel NK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8218276 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Participatory research approaches have developed in response to the growing emphasis on translation of research evidence into practice. However, there are few published examples of stakeholder engagement strategies, and little guidance specific to larger ongoing research programs or those with a rural focus. This paper describes the evolution, structure, and processes of an annual Rural Dementia Summit launched in 2008 as an engagement strategy for the Rural Dementia Action Research (RaDAR) program and ongoing for more than 10 years; and reports findings from a parallel mixed-methods study that includes stakeholder and researcher perspectives on the Summit's value and impact. Twelve years of stakeholder evaluations were analyzed. Rating scale data were summarized with descriptive statistics; open-ended questions were analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis. A thematic analysis was also used to analyze interviews with RaDAR researchers. Rating scale data showed high stakeholder satisfaction with all aspects of the Summit. Five themes were identified in the qualitative data: hearing diverse perspectives, building connections, collaborating for change, developing research and practice capacity, and leaving recharged. Five themes were identified in the researcher data: impact on development as a researcher, understanding stakeholder needs, informing research design, deepening commitment to rural dementia research, and building a culture of engagement. These findings reflect the key principles and impacts of stakeholder engagement reported in the literature. Additional findings include the value stakeholders place on connecting with stakeholders from diverse backgrounds, how the Summit was revitalizing, and how it developed stakeholder capacity to support change in their communities. Findings indicate that the Summit has developed into a community of practice where people with a common interest come together to learn and collaborate to improve rural dementia care. The Summit's success and sustainability are linked to RaDAR's responsiveness to stakeholder needs, the trust that has been established, and the value that stakeholders and researchers find in their participation.

Project description:BackgroundLatinx individuals are disproportionally burdened by kidney diseases compared to non-Latinx White individuals and are underrepresented in kidney-related research. We aimed to describe stakeholder perspectives on Latinx patient engagement in kidney-related research.MethodsWe conducted a thematic analysis of two online moderated discussions and an interactive online survey with open-text responses involving participants (i.e. stakeholders), with personal and/or professional experiences with Latinx patients with kidney diseases and their families/caregivers.ResultsAmong the eight stakeholders (Female:75%; Latinx ethnicity:88%), there were three physicians, one nurse, one patient with kidney disease who received a kidney transplant, one policy maker, one Doctor of Philosophy, and one executive director of a non-profit health organization. We identified five themes. The majority of themes and their respective subthemes (in parentheses) reflected barriers to engagement: Lack of personal relevance (unable to relate to research staff and marketing resources, and unclear benefit of research to self, family, and community); fear and vulnerability (immigration concerns, stigma with seeking care, skepticism of Western medicine); logistical and financial barriers (limited opportunities to enroll in clinical trials, out-of-pocket costs, transportation issues); and distrust and asymmetry of power (related to limited English proficiency or health literacy, and provider bias). The last theme centered on stimulating interest and establishing trust in the research process.ConclusionsTo overcome barriers to engagement in kidney-related research and establish trust among potential Latinx research participants, stakeholders recommended employing cultural responsiveness and community-based strategies. These strategies can help identify local health priorities, enhance research recruitment and retention strategies, and establish partnerships that continue to elevate research endeavors aiming to enhance the health of Latinx individuals with kidney diseases.

Project description:Background:The Translating Research in Elder Care (TREC) program is a longitudinal partnered program of research in Western Canada that aims to improve the quality of care and quality of life for residents and quality of worklife for staff in long-term care settings. This program of research includes researchers, citizens (persons living with dementia and caregivers of persons living in long-term care), and stakeholders (representatives from provincial and regional health authorities, owner-operators of long-term care homes). The aim of this paper is to describe how we used priority setting methods with citizens and stakeholders to identify ten priorities for research using the TREC data. Methods:We adapted the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership method to ensure our citizens and stakeholders could identify priorities within the existing TREC data. We administered an online survey to our citizen and stakeholder partners. An in-person priority setting workshop was held in March 2019 in Alberta, Canada to establish consensus on ten research priorities. The in-person workshop used a nominal group technique and involved two rounds of small group prioritization and one final full group ranking. Results:We received 72 online survey respondents and 19 persons (citizens, stakeholders) attended the in-person priority setting workshop. The workshop resulted in an unranked list of their ten research priorities for the TREC program. These priorities encompassed a range of non-clinical topics, including: influence of staffing (ratios, type of care provider) on residents and staff work life, influence of the work environment on resident outcomes, and the impact of quality improvement activities on residents and staff. Conclusions:This modified priority setting approach provided citizens and stakeholders with an opportunity to identify their own research priorities within the TREC program, without the external pressures of researchers. These priorities will inform the secondary analyses of the TREC data and the development of new projects. This modified priority setting may be a useful approach for research teams trying to engage their non-academic partners and to identify areas for future research.

Project description:BackgroundThe inclusion of stakeholders throughout the research process has been gaining recognition as an approach that can improve the quality and impact of research. Stakeholder engagement for dementia care research has been identified as a national priority, though evaluation of engagement strategies and their impact has been limited. In dementia care research, stakeholders can include individuals living with dementia, family care partners, and health and social care professionals in dementia care. A Stakeholder Advisory Council (SAC) was established to identify priorities for dementia care research that are most important to stakeholders. Strategies to build capacity for research and facilitate engagement among the SAC were used to identify the research priorities. This study describes the experiences of SAC members engaged in the research process.MethodsTo evaluate stakeholder engagement, semi-structured interviews were conducted with members of the SAC to understand their experiences and perspectives on the strategies used to facilitate engagement and build capacity for research. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed using a mixed inductive and deductive approach. Findings were presented to members of the SAC to determine whether they felt their perspectives and experiences were accurately represented. Final domains and themes presented here were approved by the SAC.ResultsInterviews (N = 11) were conducted with members of the SAC representing each stakeholder group; persons living with dementia (n = 2); family care partners (n = 4), and health and social care professionals in dementia care (n = 5). Ten themes were categorized into four overarching domains: accessibility, council infrastructure, values and environment, and benefits of involvement.ConclusionsFindings from this qualitative study are a resource for researchers seeking to collaborate with diverse stakeholder groups to represent their perspectives in research, including individuals living with dementia. The domains and themes identified here support the inclusion of diverse stakeholders in the research process, centering engagement and capacity building strategies around individuals living with dementia.

Project description:BackgroundDecisions to adopt a particular innovation may vary between stakeholders because individual stakeholders may disagree on the costs and benefits involved. This may translate to disagreement between stakeholders on priorities in the implementation process, possibly explaining the slow diffusion of innovations in health care. In this study, we explore the differences in stakeholder preferences for innovations, and quantify the difference in stakeholder priorities regarding costs and benefits.MethodsThe decision support technique called the analytic hierarchy process was used to quantify the preferences of stakeholders for nine information technology (IT) innovations in hospital care. The selection of the innovations was based on a literature review and expert judgments. Decision criteria related to the costs and benefits of the innovations were defined. These criteria were improvement in efficiency, health gains, satisfaction with care process, and investments required. Stakeholders judged the importance of the decision criteria and subsequently prioritized the selected IT innovations according to their expectations of how well the innovations would perform for these decision criteria.ResultsThe stakeholder groups (patients, nurses, physicians, managers, health care insurers, and policy makers) had different preference structures for the innovations selected. For instance, self-tests were one of the innovations most preferred by health care insurers and managers, owing to their expected positive impacts on efficiency and health gains. However, physicians, nurses and patients strongly doubted the health gains of self-tests, and accordingly ranked self-tests as the least-preferred innovation.ConclusionsThe various stakeholder groups had different expectations of the value of the nine IT innovations. The differences are likely due to perceived stakeholder benefits of each innovation, and less to the costs to individual stakeholder groups. This study provides a first exploratory quantitative insight into stakeholder positions concerning innovation in health care, and presents a novel way to study differences in stakeholder preferences. The results may be taken into account by decision makers involved in the implementation of innovations.

Project description:BackgroundBehavioral and psychological symptoms of distress in dementia (BPSD) are major drivers of poor quality of life, caregiver burden, institutionalization, and cost of care in nursing homes. The Evidence Integration Triangle (EIT)-4-BPSD in nursing homes was a pragmatic Hybrid III trial of an implementation strategy to help staff use evidence-based non-pharmacological interventions to prevent and manage BPSD. This study aimed to describe and explore the stakeholders' perceptions of the process to implement the EIT-4-BPSD strategy including its utility, and the barriers and facilitators to implementation in real-world settings.MethodsEIT-4-BPSD was a multi-layer implementation strategy that engaged nursing home stakeholder groups to define community specific goals towards reducing BPSD over a 12-month period. Stakeholder groups from nursing homes that completed all 12-months of the implementation strategy were invited to participate in this process evaluation study. Qualitative data from focus group transcripts were analyzed using a conventional content analysis. Emerging codes were sorted into categories, then organized in meaningful clusters based on the domains of the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework.ResultsThe EIT-4-BPSD implementation strategy was completed in 21 nursing homes; 93 stakeholders participated in focus groups. Over half of participating nursing homes reported meeting their BPSD goals as expected or more. Challenges, facilitators, and contextual factors reported by stakeholder members explains variability in the implementation of EIT-4-BPSD strategy in 11 key categories: family; staff; organizational; staff, environmental, and resident outcomes; utility of EIT resources; adoption barriers and facilitators; care process adaptations; and future planning.ConclusionStakeholders offered guidance on salient factors influencing the feasibility and utility of EIT-4-BPSD adoption and implementation to consider in future implementation research that aims to improve behavioral well-being in NH residents living with dementia. Engagement of family and staff at all levels of the organization (Management, leadership, and direct care); and measurement of staff, environmental, and resident outcomes were perceived as critical for future implementation success. While regulations, finances, and competing demands on staff time were perceived as reducing implementation success.Trial registrationThe Testing the Implementation of EIT-4-BPSD study was registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03014570 ) January 9, 2017.