Free access

Research Article

7 July 2017

Show me the money! An analysis of underserved stakeholders’ funding priorities in Patient Centered Outcomes Research domains

Authors: Stephanie Solomon Cargill [email protected], Lauren Lyn Baker, and Susan Dorr GooldAuthor Info & Affiliations

Publication: J. Comp. Eff. Res.

Volume 6, Number 5

https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2017-0008

PDF OtherFormats

Abstract

Aim: Develop an accessible exercise to engage underserved populations about research funding priorities; analyze the criteria they use to prioritize research; contrast these criteria to those currently used by Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Materials & methods: Academic and community partners collaborated to develop an Ipad exercise to facilitate group deliberation about PCOR funding priorities. 16 groups (n = 183) of underserved individuals in both urban and rural areas participated. Recordings were qualitatively analyzed for prioritization criteria. Results: Analysis yielded ten codes, many of which were similar to PCORI criteria, but all of which challenged or illuminated these criteria. Conclusion: Directly involving underserved populations in determining funding criteria is both feasible and important, and can better fulfill PCORI’s goal of incorporating patient priorities.

Formats available

You can view the full content in the following formats:

View PDF View Full Text

References

1.

Frank L, Basch E, Selby JV. The PCORI perspective on patient-centered outcomes research. JAMA 312(15), 1513–1514 (2014).

2.

Selby JV, Beal AC, Frank L. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) national priorities for research and initial research agenda. JAMA 307(15), 1583–1584 (2012).

3.

Lomas J, Fulop N, Gagnon D, Allen P. On being a good listener: setting priorities for applied health services research. Milbank Q. 81(3), 363–388 (2003).

4.

Owens C, Ley A, Aitken P. Do different stakeholder groups share mental health research priorities? A four-arm Delphi study. Health Expect. 11(4), 418–431 (2008).

5.

Gooberman-Hill R, Horwood J, Calnan M. Citizens’ juries in planning research priorities: process, engagement and outcome. Health Expect. 11(3), 272–281 (2008).

6.

Goold SD, Myers CD, Szymecko L et al. Priorities for patient-centered outcomes research: the views of minority and underserved communities. Health Serv. Res. 52(2), 599–615 (2017).

7.

Solomon S, Abelson J. Why and when should we use public deliberation? Hastings Cent. Rep. 42(2), 17–20 (2012).

8.

Goold SD, Biddle AK, Klipp G, Hall CN, Danis M. Choosing healthplans all together: a deliberative exercise for allocating limited health care resources. J. Health Polit. Policy Law 30(4), 563 (2005).

9.

Burkhalter S, Gastil J, Kelshaw T. A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Commun. Theory 12(4), 398–422 (2002).

10.

Compilation of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: extracted sections concerning patient-centered outcomes research and the authorization of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) 2010. www.pcori.org/sites/default/files/PCORI_Authorizing_Legislation.pdf

11.

Fischer MA, Allen-Coleman C, Farrell SF, Schneeweiss S. Stakeholder assessment of comparative effectiveness research needs for Medicaid populations. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 4(5), 465–471 (2015).

12.

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. National priorities for research and research agenda 2013. www.pcori.org/research-results/research-we-support/national-priorities-and-research-agenda

13.

Resnik DB. Setting biomedical research priorities: justice, science and public participation. Kennedy Inst. Ethics J. 11(2), 181–204 (2001).

14.

MacLean M, Anderson J, Martin BR. Identifying research priorities in public sector funding agencies: mapping science outputs on to user needs. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 10(2), 139–155 (1998).

15.

Gooberman-Hill R, Horwood J, Calnan M. Citizens’ juries in planning research priorities: process, engagement and outcome. Health Expect. 11(3), 272–281 (2008).

16.

Viergever RF, Olifson S, Ghaffar A, Terry RF. A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice. Health Res. Policy Syst. 8, 36 (2010).

17.

Bowling A, Jacobson B, Southgate L. Explorations in consultation of the public and health professionals on priority setting in an inner London health district. Soc. Sci. Med. 37(7), 851–857 (1993).

18.

Kapiriri L, Tomlinson M, Chopra M, El Arifeen S, Black RE, Rudan I. Setting priorities in global child health research investments: addressing values of stakeholders. Croat. Med. J. 48(5), 618–627 (2007).

|