Open access

Research Article

4 June 2021

What works when: mapping patient and stakeholder engagement methods along the ten-step continuum framework

Authors: Hillary A Edwards https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6607-8351 [email protected], Jennifer Huang, Liz Jansky, and CD Mullins https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4322-2490Author Info & Affiliations

Publication: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

Volume 10, Number 12

https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2021-0043

PDF OtherFormats

Abstract

Aim: This study provides a recommended ‘patient engagement translation table’ that identifies evidence-based methods for meaningful patient engagement along a ten-step framework for continuous engagement. Materials & methods: We used a mixed methods research design to collect data on preferred engagement methods, including an environmental scan of available literature, interviews and focus groups with patient-centered outcomes research stakeholders to match methods with research steps and a modified Delphi process with subject matter experts to create the final translation table. Results: Evidence-based engagement methods included community partnerships, focus groups, interviews, meetings, sharing print materials, social media, storytelling, surveys and including patients as research team members. Conclusion: Our recommended patient engagement translation table is designed to assist investigators in determining appropriate engagement methods for meaningful interactions with stakeholders.

Formats available

You can view the full content in the following formats:

View PDF View Full Text

Supplementary Material

File (supplemental tables.docx)

Download
978.21 KB

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

1.

Forsythe LP, Carman KL, Szydlowski V et al. Patient engagement in research: early findings from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Health Aff. (Millwood) 38(3), 359–367 (2019).

•• Analyzes 126 peer-reviewed articles that include descriptions of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute research teams’ experiences with engagement.

2.

Conway PH. How the Recovery Act’s federal coordinating council paved the way for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Health Aff. (Millwood) 29(11), 2091–2097 (2010).

3.

Carman KL, Dardess P, Maurer M et al. Patient and family engagement: a framework for understanding the elements and developing interventions and policies. Health Aff. (Millwood) 32(2), 223–231 (2013).

4.

Frank L, de Wit M, Kirwan JR, Guillemin F, Bartlett SJ. Author response: patient engagement. Value Health 20(10), 1433 (2017).

5.

Frank L. Active patient engagement in research. Health Aff. (Millwood) 32(2), 438–439 (2013).

6.

Kirwan JR, de Wit M, Frank L et al. Emerging guidelines for patient engagement in research. Value Health 20(3), 481–486 (2017).

7.

Clauser SB, Gayer C, Murphy E, Majhail NS, Baker KS. Patient centeredness and engagement in quality-of-care oncology research. J. Oncol. Pract. 11(3), 176–179 (2015).

8.

Sheridan S, Schrandt S, Forsythe L, Hilliard TS, Paez KA. The PCORI engagement rubric: promising practices for partnering in research. Ann. Fam. Med. 15(2), 165–170 (2017).

•• Defines principles of engagement; definitions of stakeholder types; key considerations for planning, conducting and disseminating engaged research; potential engagement activities; and examples of promising practices from Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute-funded projects.

9.

Shelef DQ, Rand C, Streisand R et al. Using stakeholder engagement to develop a patient-centered pediatric asthma intervention. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 138(6), 1512–1517 (2016).

10.

Forsythe LP, Frank LB, Workman TA, Hilliard T, Harwell D, Fayish L. Patient, caregiver and clinician views on engagement in comparative effectiveness research. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 6(3), 231–244 (2017).

•• Describes a survey study on patient, caregiver and clinician views toward engagement as partners in health research.

11.

Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv. Res. 14, 89 (2014).

12.

Forsythe LP, Szydlowski V, Murad MH et al. A systematic review of approaches for engaging patients for research on rare diseases. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 29(Suppl. 3), S788–S800 (2014).

13.

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(2), 165–170 (2017).

14.

Tunis SR, Messner DA, Mohr P, Gliklich RE, Dubois RW. A translation table for patient-centered comparative effectiveness research: guidance to improve the value of research for clinical and health policy decision-making. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 1(3), 259–262 (2012).

15.

House Office of the Legislative Counsel. 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) Washington, DC (2015). https://www.pcori.org/assets/PCORI-Authorizing-Legislation-0323101.pdf

16.

Faridi Z, Grunbaum JA, Gray BS, Franks A, Simoes E. Community-based participatory research: necessary next steps. Prev. Chronic Dis. 4(3), A70 (2007).

17.

Cornwall A, Jewkes R. What is participatory research? Soc. Sci. Med. 41(12), 1667–1676 (1995).

18.

Cawston PG, Mercer SW, Barbour RS. Involving deprived communities in improving the quality of primary care services: does participatory action research work? BMC Health Serv. Res. (2007).

19.

Mockford C, Staniszewska S, Griffiths F, Herron-Marx S. The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: a systematic review. Int. J. Qual. Heal. Care 24(1), 28–38 (2012).

20.

Crocker JC, Boylan AM, Bostock J, Locock L. Is it worth it? Patient and public views on the impact of their involvement in health research and its assessment: a UK-based qualitative interview study. Heal. Expect. 20(3), 519–528 (2017).

• Explores the views of public and patient involvement contributors involved in health research regarding the impact of public and patient involvement on research, whether and how it should be assessed.

21.

Stewart D, Wilson R, Selby P, Darbyshire J. Patient and public involvement. Ann. Oncol. 22(Suppl. 7), 54–56 (2011).

22.

NHS National Institute for Health Research. Patient and public involvement in health and social care research: a handbook for researchers (2014). https://www.nihr.ac.uk/about-us/CCF/funding/how-we-can-help-you/RDS-PPI-Handbook-2014-v8-FINAL.pdf

23.

Mullins CD, Abdulhalim AM, Lavallee DC. Continuous patient engagement in comparative effectiveness research. JAMA 307(15), 1587–1588 (2012).

•• Provides an overview and ten-step framework for continuous stakeholder engagement in the design, development, dissemination and evaluation stages of comparative effectiveness research.

24.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 6(7), e1000100 (2009).

25.

Mullins CD. Integrating patients’ voices in study design elements with a focus on hard-to-reach populations Washington, DC. https://www.pcori.org/sites/default/files/IntegratingPatientsVoices.pdf

26.

Newhouse R, Goodman S, Aronson N, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute et al . PCORI methodology report (2017). https://www.pcori.org/sites/default/files/PCORI-Methodology-Report.pdf

27.

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). PCORI engagement rubric. Publ. Febr. 4, 2014. Updat. Oct. 12, 2015 (2015). https://www.pcori.org/sites/default/files/Engagement-Rubric.pdf

28.

Perfetto EM, Oehrlein EM, Beal A et al. Assessing meaningful patient engagement in drug development: a definition, framework, and rubric, M-CERSI conference on patient-focused drug development planning committee (2015). https://www.pharmacy.umaryland.edu/media/SOP/wwwpharmacyumarylandedu/centers/cersievents/pfdd/mcersi-pfdd-framework-rubric.pdf

29.

Mooney M, Crane K. Community resource mapping (NCSET essential tools) (2005). https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/172995

30.

Briggs L, Huang Y. Asset-based community maps: a tool for expanding resources in community health programs. Pedagog. Heal. Promot. 3(3), 195–201 (2017).

31.

Fiechtner L, Puente GC, Sharifi M et al. A community resource map to support clinical–community linkages in a randomized controlled trial of childhood obesity, Eastern Massachusetts, 2014–2016. Prev. Chronic Dis. 14, 160577 (2017).

32.

Skinner B, Crane K. Community resource mapping: a strategy for promoting successful transition for youth with disabilities (NCSET information brief) (2003). https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/172853

33.

Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J. Adv. Nurs. 32(4), 1008–1015 (2000).

34.

McMillan SS, King M, Tully MP. How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques. Int. J. Clin. Pharm. 38(3), 655–662 (2016).

|