Current practice of stakeholder engagement: researchers’ experiences in North America, DACH countries and China
Publication: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
Abstract
Aim: To explore the current practice of stakeholder engagement in clinical trials and its evaluation in North America (USA and Canada), DACH countries (Germany, Austria and Switzerland) and China. Participants & methods: We conducted a web-based, anonymous, international, cross-sectional online survey for clinical researchers. Data were analyzed using descriptive and explorative statistical analysis including analysis of variance and analysis of covariance. Results: Stakeholder engagement is more prominent and higher accepted among researchers in North America. Researchers in DACH countries have less knowledge of the stakeholder engagement method and are less likely to apply it. Conclusion: Stakeholder engagement is perceived very differently among participants from DACH countries, North America and China. For a broader acceptance and implementation institutional support and motivational conditions might be needed.
Supplementary Material
References
Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest
1.
Concannon TW, Meissner P, Grunbaum JA et al. A new taxonomy for stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 27(8), 985–991 (2012).
• Reports the definition, practices and implementations of stakeholder engagement.
2.
Kim KK, Khodyakov D, Marie K et al. A novel stakeholder engagement approach for patient-centered outcomes research. Med. Care 10(Suppl. 1), S41–S47 (2018).
3.
Lavallee DC, Wicks P, Alfonso Cristancho R, Mullins CD. Stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research: high-touch or high-tech? Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 14(3), 335–344 (2014).
4.
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).
• Reports the definition, practices and implementations of stakeholder engagement.
5.
Van Der Scheer L, Garcia E, Van Der Laan AL, Van Der Burg S, Boenink M. The benefits of patient involvement for translational research. Health Care Anal. 25(3), 225–241 (2017).
6.
Goodman MS, Sanders Thompson VL. The science of stakeholder engagement in research: classification, implementation, and evaluation. Transl. Behav. Med. 7(3), 486–491 (2017).
• Reports the definition, practices and implementations of stakeholder engagement.
7.
Hansen SL, Holetzek T, Heyder C, Wiesemann C. Stakeholder-Beteiligung in der klinischen Forschung: eine ethische analyse. Ethik in der Medizin.30(4), 289–305 (2018).
8.
Freeman RE. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge University Press, MA, USA (1984).
9.
PCORI. Patient-centered outcomes research institute: about us (2014). www.pcori.org/about-us/our-story
10.
PCORI. Patient-centered outcomes research institute: funding opportunities (2012). www.pcori.org/funding-opportunities/research-support-funding-opportunities
11.
Forsythe LP, Ellis LE, Edmundson L et al. Patient and stakeholder engagement in the PCORI pilot projects: description and lessons learned. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 31(1), 13–21 (2016).
12.
Selby JV, Forsythe L, Sox HC. Stakeholder-driven comparative effectiveness research: an update from PCORI. JAMA 314(21), 2235–2236 (2015).
• Reports the definition, practices and implementations of stakeholder engagement.
13.
Woolf SH, Zimmerman E, Haley A, Krist AH. Authentic engagement of patients and communities can transform research, practice, and policy. Health Affairs 35(4), 590–594 (2016).
14.
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).
• Reports the definition, practices and implementations of stakeholder engagement.
15.
Lavery JV. Building an evidence base for stakeholder engagement. Science 361(6402), 554 (2018).
16.
Jackson T, Pinnock H, Liew SM et al. Patient and public involvement in research: from tokenistic box ticking to valued team members. BMC Med. 18(1), 79 (2020).
17.
National Institute for Health Research. NIHR: about INVOLVE (2021). www.invo.org.uk/about-involve/
18.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Developing NICE guidelines: a guide for stakeholders and the public (2014). www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/our-programmes/developing-NICE-guidelines-information-for-stakeholders.pdf
19.
Brereton L, Ingleton C, Gardiner C et al. Lay and professional stakeholder involvement in scoping palliative care issues: methods used in seven European countries. Palliat. Med. 31(2), 181–192 (2017).
20.
Liu C, Meyers K. Beyond clinical trials: social outcomes of structured stakeholder engagement in biomedical HIV prevention trials in China. Cult. Health Sex 1–17 (2019).
21.
Wratil P, Helbing G, Wiens O. Research report I. Results of the legacy study - a first overview (2017). https://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/2017/p17-006.pdf
22.
Leiner DJ. SoSci Survey. Informationen über SoSci survey (2016). www.soscisurvey.de/de/about
23.
Leiner DJ. SoSci survey (2016). www.soscisurvey.de
24.
Rstudio Team. RStudio: integrated development environment for R (Version 1.1.419). MA, USA (2018). www.rstudio.com/
25.
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing (2017). R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. www.R-project.org/
26.
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).
27.
Mallery C, Ganachair D, Fernandez J, Smeeding L, Robinson S, Moon M. Innovative methods in stakeholder engagement: an environmental scan. AHRQ Publication NO. 12-EHC097-EF (2012). https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/stakeholders-engagement-others_research-2012-1.pdf
28.
Guise JM, 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).
• Reports the definition, practices and implementations of stakeholder engagement.
29.
Thariani R, Wong W, Carlson JJ et al. Prioritization in comparative effectiveness research: the CANCERGEN experience. Med. Care 50(5), 388–393 (2012).
30.
Sebo P, Maisonneuve H, Cerutti B, Fournier JP, Senn N, Haller DM. Rates, delays, and completeness of general practitioners' responses to a postal versus web-based survey: a randomized trial. J. Med. Internet Res. 19(3), e83–e83 (2017).
31.
Af Wåhlberg AE, Poom L. An empirical test of nonresponse bias in internet surveys. Basic Appl. Social Psychol. 37(6), 336–347 (2015).
32.
Cook DA, Wittich CM, Daniels WL, West CP, Harris AM, Beebe TJ. Incentive and reminder strategies to improve response rate for internet-based physician surveys: a randomized experiment. J. Med. Internet Res. 18(9), e244 (2016).
33.
Eysenbach G, Wyatt J. Using the internet for surveys and health research. J. Med. Internet Res. 4(2), e13 (2002).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Pages: 751 - 761
PubMed: 33955232
Copyright
© 2021 Heiß et al. This work is licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Unported License
History
Received: 10 December 2020
Accepted: 26 March 2021
Published online: 6 May 2021
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
Current practice of stakeholder engagement: researchers’ experiences in North America, DACH countries and China. (2021) Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. DOI: 10.2217/cer-2020-0279
Export citation
Select the citation format you wish to export for this article or chapter.