Engaging patients and stakeholders in preresearch: findings from the Pipeline to Proposal Awards Initiative
Publication: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
Abstract
Aim: The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Pipeline to Proposal (P2P) Awards Initiative funded 177 awardees to engage patients and stakeholder partners in preresearch. Based on P2P, we described engagement strategies; outcomes; facilitators; and challenges to inform research funders and stakeholders participating in preresearch. Materials & methods: We used a qualitative approach based on content analysis of program data and interviews with P2P awardees and partners. Results: Awardees developed partnership infrastructure by recruiting patients and stakeholders, establishing clear roles, and providing training. Building trust was key to engaging patients and stakeholders in preresearch. Awardees reported partners were more likely to engage in PCOR in the future. Conclusion: P2P awardees increased capacity of patient and stakeholder partnerships to conduct PCOR.
Supplementary Material
File (suppl_file.docx)
- Download
- 349.24 KB
References
Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest
1.
Rolfe DE, Ramsden VR, Banner D et al. Using qualitative health research methods to improve patient and public involvement and engagement in research. Res. Involv. Engagem. 4, 49 (2018).
2.
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The value of engagement (2018). www.pcori.org/engagement/value-engagement
3.
INVOLVE. What is public involvement in research? (2020). www.invo.org.uk/
4.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Strategy for patient-oriented research (2019). https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/41204.html
5.
Zych MM, Berta WB, Gagliardi AR. Initiation is recognized as a fundamental early phase of integrated knowledge translation (IKT): qualitative interviews with researchers and research users in IKT partnerships. BMC Health Serv. Res. 19, 772 (2019).
• Qualitative research paper characterizes the initiation phase in integrated knowledge translation.
6.
Stallings SC, Boyer AP, Joosten YA et al. A taxonomy of impacts on clinical and translational research from community stakeholder engagement. Health Expect. 22, 731–742 (2019).
• Introduces The Community Stakeholder Impact on Research Taxonomy, which can be used to standardize the reporting and evaluation of engagement activities in research projects.
7.
Gagliardi AR, Berta W, Kothari A et al. Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health care: a scoping review. Implement. Sci. 11, 38 (2015).
• Scoping review describes integrated knowledge translation approaches, barriers, facilitators and outcomes.
8.
Kothari A, MacLean L, Edwards N et al. Indicators at the interface: managing policymaker-researcher collaboration. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 9, 203–214 (2011).
9.
Kirwan JR, De Wit M, Frank L et al. Emerging guidelines for patient engagement in research. Value Health 20(3), 481–486 (2017).
10.
Kendall C, Fitzgerald M, Kang RS et al. “Still learning and evolving in our approaches”: patient and stakeholder engagement among Canadian community-based primary health care researchers. Res. Involv. Engagem. 4, 47 (2018).
11.
Frank L, Basch E, Selby JV. The PCORI perspective on patient-centered outcomes research. JAMA 312(15), 1513–1514 (2014).
12.
Guise J-M, O'Haire C, McPheeters M et al. A practice-based tool for engaging stakeholders in future research: a synthesis of current practices. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 66(6), 666–674 (2013).
13.
Boudes M, Robinson P, Bertelsen N et al. What do stakeholders expect from patient engagement: are these expectations being met? Health Expect. 21(6), 1035–1045 (2018).
14.
Cornman DH, White CM. Discerning the Perception and Impact of Patients Involved in Evidence-based Practice Center Key Informant Interviews. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, MD, USA (2017). www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cf
15.
Forsythe L, Heckert A, Margolis MK, Schrandt S, Frank L. Methods and impact of engagement in research, from theory to practice and back again: early findings from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Qual. Life Res. 27(1), 17–31 (2018).
• Seminal paper describes the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute’s evaluation framework for assessing the impacts of engagement.
16.
Hacker KE, Smith AB. Engaging stakeholders and patient partners. Surg. Oncol. Clin. N. Am. 27(4), 665–673 (2018).
17.
Natafgi N, Tsahai Tafari A, Chauhan C, Bekelman JE, Mullins DC. Patients' early engagement in research proposal development (PEER-PD): patients guiding the proposal writing. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 8(6), 441–453 (2019).
• Describes and compares different levels of patient engagement in preresearch.
18.
Khodyakov D, Grant S, Meeker D, Booth M, Pacheco-Santivanez N, Kim KK. Comparative analysis of stakeholder experiences with an online approach to prioritizing patient-centered research topics. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 24(3), 537–543 (2016).
19.
Duffett L. Patient engagement: what partnering with patient in research is all about. Thromb. Res. 150, 113–120 (2017).
20.
Carman KL, Workman TA. Engaging patients and consumers in research evidence: applying the conceptual model of patient and family engagement. Patient Educ. Couns. 100(1), 25–29 (2017).
21.
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Engagement Rubric for Applicants (2014). www.pcori.org/sites/default/files/Engagement-Rubric.pdf
22.
Chun Tie Y, Birks M, Francis K. Grounded theory research: a design framework for novice researchers. SAGE Open Med. 7, 1-8 (2019).
23.
Patton MQ. Chapter 5: Designing Qualitative Studies In: Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd Edition). Sage, CA, USA (2002).
24.
Bradley EH, Curry LA, Devers KJ. Qualitative data analysis for health services research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Serv. Res. 42(4), 1758–1772 (2007).
25.
McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem. Medica 22(3), 276–282 (2012).
26.
Bishop AC, Elliott MJ, Cassidy C. Moving patient-oriented research forward: thoughts from the next generation of knowledge translation researchers. Res. Involv. Engagem. 4, 23 (2018).
27.
Carroll SL, Embuldeniya G, Abelson J, McGillion M, Berkesse A, Healey JS. Questioning patient engagement: research scientists' perceptions of the challenges of patient engagement in a cardiovascular research network. Patient Prefer. Adherence 11, 1579 (2017).
28.
Costello W, Dorris E. Laying the groundwork: building relationships for public and patient involvement in pre-clinical paediatric research. Health Expect. 23, 96–105 (2020).
29.
Esmail L, Moore E, Rein A. Evaluating patient and stakeholder engagement in research: moving from theory to practice. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 4(2), 133–145 (2015).
• Synthesizes the literature on the impacts of engagement and the evidence of patient and stakeholder engagement in research.
30.
Concannon TW, Fuster M, Saunders T et al. A systematic review of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 29(12), 1692–1701 (2014).
31.
Bowen DJ, Hyams T, Goodman M, West KM, Harris-Wai J, Yu JH. Systematic review of quantitative measures of stakeholder engagement. Clin. Transl. Sci. 10(5), 314 (2017).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Pages: 721 - 736
PubMed: 32672474
Copyright
© 2020 Alycia Bayne et al. This work is licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Unported License
History
Received: 19 December 2019
Accepted: 1 May 2020
Published online: 16 July 2020
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 patients and stakeholders in preresearch: findings from the Pipeline to Proposal Awards Initiative. (2020) Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. DOI: 10.2217/cer-2019-0203
Export citation
Select the citation format you wish to export for this article or chapter.
Citing Literature
- Precious McCowan, Taya Joseph, Cassandra B. Picataggio, Lindsay Bailey, Sahib Chandi, Amanpreet Singh, Shivani Surati, Laura M. Dember, Jennifer E. Flythe, Meaningful Engagement of Patients in Research, American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 10.1053/j.ajkd.2026.01.020, (2026).
- Scott McDonald, Minh Duong Kim Ngo, Scott McDonald, Minh Duong Kim Ngo, Third-Party Logistics (3PL): Today’s Jack-of-All-Trades, Level Up Your Logistics, 10.1007/978-981-95-0533-3_4, (121-209), (2025).
- Georgia Tobiano, Brigid M. Gillespie, Joan Carlini, Rachel Muir, Jananee Rasiah, Ching Shan Wan, Tamara L. McCarron, Karen Moffat, Sepideh Jahandideh, Wendy Chaboyer, Establishing patient partners’ roles on research teams: a scoping review, Research Involvement and Engagement, 10.1186/s40900-024-00664-1, 10, 1, (2024).
- Henrike J. Westerink, Tom Oirbans, Mirjam M. Garvelink, Cornelia F. van Uden-Kraan, Ouisam Zouitni, Hans A.J. Bart, Philip J. van der Wees, Paul B. van der Nat, Barriers and facilitators of meaningful patient participation at the collective level in healthcare organizations: A systematic review, Health Policy, 10.1016/j.healthpol.2023.104946, 138, (104946), (2023).
- Maureen E. Maurer, Tandrea Hilliard‐Boone, Karen Frazier, Laura Forsythe, Rachel Mosbacher, Kristin L. Carman, Examining how study teams manage different viewpoints and priorities in patient‐centered outcomes research: Results of an embedded multiple case study, Health Expectations, 10.1111/hex.13765, 26, 4, (1606-1617), (2023).
- Emily D. Quinn, Kathleen Cotter, Kim Kurin, Kim Brown, Conducting a Community Engagement Studio to Adapt Enhanced Milieu Teaching, American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10.1044/2021_AJSLP-21-00100, 31, 3, (1095-1113), (2022).
- Jenny Martínez, Catherine Verrier Piersol, Kenneth Lucas, Natalie E. Leland, Operationalizing Stakeholder Engagement Through the Stakeholder-Centric Engagement Charter (SCEC), Journal of General Internal Medicine, 10.1007/s11606-021-07029-4, 37, S1, (105-108), (2022).