Engaging parent–child dyad and healthcare provider stakeholders in a patient-centered comparative effectiveness study
Publication: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
Abstract
Aim: Describe engagement activities in a comparative effectiveness study evaluating two interventions for promoting psychosocial health among youth ages 10–17 who have recently experienced a nonintentional injury. Methods: Institutional, community and patient stakeholders from four children’s hospitals were engaged through consultation meetings, individual interviews and a collaborative meeting. Results: 67 engagement activities were conducted across four hospitals. Feedback to improve recruitment, retention and continuous engagement in the study was obtained. Finally, disseminating study interventions to school and healthcare settings, and adding alternative delivery formats were identified as priority next steps. Conclusion: Results highlight diverse methods of engaging patient and professional stakeholders, critical recommendations for improving study engagement and retention, and future directions for this patient-engaged comparative effectiveness research.
Formats available
You can view the full content in the following formats:
References
Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
Frank L, Forsythe L, Ellis L et al. Conceptual and practical foundations of patient engagement in research at the patient-centered outcomes research institute. Qual. Life Res. 24, 1033–1041 (2015).
•• Presents an overview of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute approach to patient-engaged research and efforts to establish promising practices for engagement to guide the field of comparative effectiveness research.
2.
Kirwan JR, de Wit M, Frank L et al. Emerging guidelines for patient engagement in research. Value Health 20(3), 481–486 (2017).
• Discusses experiences engaging patients as research partners from the perspectives of researchers, patients and funders, and suggests guidelines to develop research partnerships with patients.
3.
Sheridan S, Schrandt S, Forsythe L, Hilliard TS, Paez KA. Advisory panel on patient engagement (2013 inaugural panel). The PCORI engagement rubric: promising practices for partnering in research. Ann. Fam. Med. 15, 165–170 (2017).
4.
Concannon TW, Meissner P, Grunbaum JA et al. A new taxonomy for stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 27, 985 (2012).
5.
Deverka PA, Lavallee DC, Desai PJ et al. Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 1(2), 181–194 (2012).
•• Presents a conceptual model for stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness research to provide guidance for researchers, stakeholders and funders interested in comparative effectiveness research.
6.
Ocloo J, Matthews R. From tokenism to empowerment: progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement. BMJ Qual. Saf. 25(8), 626–632 (2016).
7.
Borse NN, Gilchrist J, Dellinger AM, Rudd RA, Ballesteros MF, Sleet DA. CDC Childhood Injury Report: Patterns of Unintentional Injuries Among 0–19 Year Olds in the United States, 2000–2006. CDC – NCIPC, GA, USA (2008).
8.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. National Action Plan for Child Injury Prevention: An agenda to Prevent Injuries and Promote the Safety of Children and Adolescents in the United States. CDC – NCIPC, GA, USA (2012).
9.
Bisson J, Andrew M. Psychological treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 18 (3), CD003388 (2007).
10.
Bisson JI. Post-traumatic stress disorder. Brit. Med. J. 334(7597), 789–793 (2007).
11.
Michaels AJ, Michaels CE, Moon CH et al. Posttraumatic stress disorder after injury: impact on general health outcome and early risk assessment. J. Trauma 47(3), 460–466; discussion 466–467 (1999).
12.
Schneeberg A, Ishikawa T, Kruse S et al. A longitudinal study on quality of life after injury in children. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 14(1), 120 (2016).
13.
Barzilay R, Calkins ME, Moore TM et al. Association between traumatic stress load, psychopathology, and cognition in the Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort. Psychol. Med. 49(2), 325–334 (2019).
14.
January AM, Zebracki K, Chlan KM, Vogel LC. Symptoms of depression over time in adults with pediatric-onset spinal cord injury. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 95(3), 447–454 (2014).
15.
Ramirez M, Toussaint M, Woods-Jaeger B et al. Link for injured kids: a patient-centered program of psychological first aid after trauma. Pediatr. Emerg. Care 33(8), 532 (2017).
16.
Ramirez M, Harland K, Frederick M, Shepherd R, Wong M, Cavanaugh JE. Listen protect connect for traumatized schoolchildren: a pilot study of psychological first aid. BMC Psychol. 1(1), 26 (2013).
17.
Peek-Asa C, Cavanaugh JE, Yang J, Chande V, Young T, Ramirez M. Steering teens safe: a randomized trial of a parent-based intervention to improve safe teen driving. BMC Public Health 14(1), 777 (2014).
18.
Kenardy J, Cobham V, Nixon RD, McDermott B, March S. Protocol for a randomised controlled trial of risk screening and early intervention comparing child- and family-focused cognitive-behavioural therapy for PTSD in children following accidental injury. BMC Psychiatr. 10(1), 92 (2010).
19.
Kenardy J, Thompson K, Le Brocque R, Olsson K. Information–provision intervention for children and their parents following pediatric accidental injury. Eur. Child. Adolesc. Psych. 17(5), 316–325 (2008).
20.
Oral R, Ramirez M, Coohey C et al. Adverse childhood experiences and trauma informed care: the future of health care. Pediatr. Res. 79(1–2), 227 (2015).
21.
PCORI Engagement Rubric. PCORI (Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute) website. www.pcori.org/sites/default/files/Engagement-Rubric.pdf
22.
StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 15. StataCorp LLC, TX, USA (2017).
23.
QSR International Pty Ltd. NVivo qualitative data analysis software; version 10 (2014).
24.
Hsieh H, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual. Health Res. 15, 1277–1288 (2005).
25.
Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding inter-observer agreement: the κ statistic. Family Med. 37(5), 360–363 (2005).
26.
McMillan SS, King M, Tully MP. How to use nominal group and Delphi techniques. Int. J. Clin. Pharm. 38, 655–662 (2016).
27.
National Institutes of Health. Final NIH policy on the use of a single institutional review board for multi-site research. Notice number: NOT-OD-16-094. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-16-094.html
28.
Fewtrell MS, Kennedy K, Singhal A et al. How much loss to follow-up is acceptable in long-term randomised trials and prospective studies? Arch. Dis. Child. 93(6), 458–461 (2008).
29.
Robinson KA, Dinglas VD, Sukrithan V et al. Updated systematic review identifies substantial number of retention strategies: using more strategies retains more study participants. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 68(12), 1481–1487 (2015).
30.
Kirwan JR, Hewlett S. Patient perspective: reasons and methods for measuring fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis. J. Rheumatol. 34, 1171–1173 (2007).
31.
Kirwan JR, Minnock P, Adebajo A et al. Patient perspective: fatigue as a recommended patient centered outcome measure in rheumatoid arthritis. J. Rheumatol. 34, 1174–1177 (2007).
32.
Aletaha D, Landewe R, Karonitsch T et al. Reporting disease activity in clinical trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: EULAR/ACR collaborative recommendations. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 67, 1360–1364 (2008).
33.
Fleurence R, Selby JV, Odom-Walker K et al. How the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute is engaging patients and others in shaping its research agenda. Health Aff. (Millwood) 32(2), 393–400 (2013).
• Describes the approach of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute in promoting meaningful engagement of patients in the research process and challenges of that approach.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Pages: 721 - 732
PubMed: 31290702
Copyright
© 2019 Future Medicine Ltd.
History
Received: 15 November 2018
Accepted: 26 April 2019
Published online: 10 July 2019
Keywords:
Topics
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Article Usage
Article usage data only available from February 2023. Historical article usage data, showing the number of article downloads, is available upon request.
Citations
How to Cite
Engaging parent–child dyad and healthcare provider stakeholders in a patient-centered comparative effectiveness study. (2019) Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. DOI: 10.2217/cer-2018-0126
Export citation
Select the citation format you wish to export for this article or chapter.
Citing Literature
- Elisabeth A Stelson, Roxanne Dupuis, Qualitative methods are epidemiologic methods: Revisiting the epidemiologist's toolbox, American Journal of Epidemiology, 10.1093/aje/kwaf083, (2025).
- Judy So, Sunny Sun, Annie Kim, Saina Nemati, Michelle M. Kim, Gwyneth McIntosh, Kristina Pikksalu, Christine Loock, Matthew Carwana, Facilitating Access to Care for Children With Complex Health Needs Through Low-Barrier Place-Based Intake Processes: Lessons From the RICHER Social Pediatric Model, Journal of Primary Care & Community Health, 10.1177/21501319241273284, 15, (2024).
- Elisabeth A. Stelson, Mallory Bolenbaugh, Briana Woods-Jaeger, Cassidy Branch, Marizen Ramirez, Identifying research Participation effects through qualitative methods: Feedback from Research Engagement Consultants involved in a pediatric mental health comparative effectiveness trial, SSM - Qualitative Research in Health, 10.1016/j.ssmqr.2021.100023, 1, (100023), (2021).
- Marizen R. Ramirez, Javier E. Flores, Briana Woods-Jaeger, Joseph E. Cavanaugh, Corinne Peek-Asa, Cassidy Branch, Mallory Bolenbaugh, Vidya Chande, Graeme Pitcher, Henry W. Ortega, Kimberly A. Randell, Kristel Wetjen, Lisa Roth, Justin Kenardy, Comparative Effectiveness of Parent-Based Interventions to Support Injured Children, Pediatrics, 10.1542/peds.2020-046920, 148, 4, (2021).