Promoting community stakeholder engagement in research on treatment for pregnant women with opioid use disorder
Publication: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
Abstract
Aim: Community stakeholder engagement in research (CSER) can improve research relevance and efficiency as well as prevent harmful practices, particularly for vulnerable populations. Despite potential benefits, researchers lack familiarity with CSER methods. Methods: We describe CSER strategies used across the research continuum, including proposal development, study planning and the first years of a comparative effectiveness study of care for pregnant women with opioid use disorder. Results: We highlight successful strategies, grounded in principles of engagement, to establish and maintain stakeholder relationships, foster bidirectional communication and trust and support active participation of women with opioid use disorder in the research process. Conclusion: CSER methods support research with a disenfranchised population. Future work will evaluate the impact of CSER strategies on study outcomes and dissemination.
Supplementary Material
File (supplementary materials.pdf)
- Download
- 65.82 KB
References
Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
Yousefi Nooraie R, Kwan BM, Cohn E et al. Advancing health equity through CTSA programs: opportunities for interaction between health equity, dissemination and implementation, and translational science. J. Clin. Transl. Sci. 4(3), 168–175 (2020).
2.
Hoekstra F, Mrklas KJ, Khan M et al. A review of reviews on principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts of research partnerships approaches: a first step in synthesising the research partnership literature. Health Res. Policy Syst. 18(1), 51 (2020).
3.
National Institutes of Health. Funding opportunity: clinical and translational science award (UM1 clinical trial optional). (30 July 2021). https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-21-293.html
4.
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The value of engagement (30 October 2018). www.pcori.org/engagement/value-engagement
5.
Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 19, 173–202 (1998).
6.
Forsythe LP, Frank LB, Workman TA et al. Health researcher views on comparative effectiveness research and research engagement. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 6(3), 245–256 (2017).
7.
Selman LE, Clement C, Douglas M et al. Patient and public involvement in randomised clinical trials: a mixed-methods study of a clinical trials unit to identify good practice, barriers and facilitators. Trials 22(1), 735 (2021).
8.
Brunton G, Thomas J, O’Mara-Eves A, Jamal F, Oliver S, Kavanagh J. Narratives of community engagement: a systematic review-derived conceptual framework for public health interventions. BMC Public Health 17(1), 944 (2017).
9.
O'Mara-Eves A, Brunton G, Oliver S, Kavanagh J, Jamal F, Thomas J. The effectiveness of community engagement in public health interventions for disadvantaged groups: a meta-analysis. BMC Public Health 15, 129 (2015).
10.
Mcnulty M, Smith JD, Villamar J et al. Implementation research methodologies for achieving scientific equity and health equity. Ethn. Dis. 29(Suppl. 1), 83–92 (2019).
11.
Wallerstein N, Duran B. Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: the intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. Am. J. Public Health 100(Suppl. 1), S40–S46 (2010).
12.
Rhodes SD, Tanner AE, Mann-Jackson L et al. Promoting community and population health in public health and medicine: a stepwise guide to initiating and conducting community-engaged research. J. Health Dispar. Res. Pract. 11(3), 16–31 (2018).
13.
Sanders Thompson VL, Ackermann N, Bauer KL, Bowen DJ, Goodman MS. Strategies of community engagement in research: definitions and classifications. Transl. Behav. Med. 11(2), 441–451 (2021).
14.
Edwards HA, Huang J, Jansky L, Mullins CD. What works when: mapping patient and stakeholder engagement methods along the ten-step continuum framework. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 10(12), 999–1017 (2021).
15.
Goodman MS, Sanders Thompson VL. The science of stakeholder engagement in research: classification, implementation, and evaluation. Transl. Behav. Med. 7(3), 486–491 (2017).
16.
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).
•• This study compiled engagement activities in hundreds of studies funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
17.
Marchand K, Tallon C, Katan C et al. Improving Treatment Together: a protocol for a multi-phase, community-based participatory, and co-design project to improve youth opioid treatment service experiences in British Columbia. Addict. Sci. Clin. Pract. 16(1), 53 (2021).
18.
El-Bassel N, Gilbert L, Hunt T et al. Using community engagement to implement evidence-based practices for opioid use disorder: a data-driven paradigm & systems science approach. Drug Alcohol Depend. 222, 108675 (2021).
19.
Sprague Martinez L, Rapkin BD, Young A et al. Community engagement to implement evidence-based practices in the HEALing communities study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 217, 108326 (2020).
20.
Werito V, Belone L. Research from a Diné-centered perspective and the development of a community-based participatory research partnership. Health Educ. Behav. 48(3), 361–370 (2021).
21.
Campbell AN, Turrigiano E, Moore M et al. Acceptability of a web-based community reinforcement approach for substance use disorders with treatment-seeking American Indians/Alaska Natives. Community Ment. Health J. 51(4), 393–403 (2015).
22.
Patrick SW, Schiff DM. A public health response to opioid use in pregnancy. Pediatrics 139(3), e20164070 (2017).
23.
Committee Opinion No. 711: opioid use and opioid use disorder in pregnancy. Obstet. Gynecol. 130(2), e81–e94 (2017).
24.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. A collaborative approach to the treatment of pregnant women with opioid use disorders (2016). https://store.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/d7/priv/sma16-4978.pdf
25.
CITI Program. Community-engaged and community-based participatory research course. https://about.citiprogram.org/course/community-engaged-and-community-based-participatory-research/
26.
Schwarz R. The Skilled Facilitator: A Comprehensive Resource for Consultants, Facilitators, Managers, Trainers, and Coaches (3rd Edition). Jossey-Bass Professional Learning, Jossey-Bass, CA, USA (2016).
27.
Coleman E, O’Sullivan L, Crowley R et al. Preparing accessible and understandable clinical research participant information leaflets and consent forms: a set of guidelines from an expert consensus conference. Res. Involv. Engagem. 7(1), 31 (2021).
28.
Luger TM, Hamilton AB, True G. Measuring community-engaged research contexts, processes, and outcomes: a mapping review. Milbank Q. 98(2), 493–553 (2020).
29.
Goodman MS, Sanders Thompson VL, Johnson CA et al. Evaluating community engagement in research: quantitative measure development. J. Community Psychol. 45(1), 17–32 (2017).
30.
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Engagement rubric (Updated 6 June 2016). www.pcori.org/sites/default/files/Engagement-Rubric.pdf
31.
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).
•• Large survey of attitudes that identifies facilitators and barriers to stakeholder engagement.
32.
Heckert A, Forsythe LP, Carman KL et al. Researchers, patients, and other stakeholders’ perspectives on challenges to and strategies for engagement. Res. Involv. Engagem. 6, 60 (2020).
33.
Kohn J, Unger Z, Dolatshahi J, Simons H, Rein A. Attitudes toward comparative effectiveness research and patient engagement among reproductive health clinicians. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 6(4), 337–345 (2017).
34.
Slade M, Bird V, Chandler R et al. The contribution of advisory committees and public involvement to large studies: case study. BMC Health Serv. Res. 10, 323 (2010).
35.
Mullins CD, Tanveer S, Graham G, Baquet CR. Advancing community-engaged research: increasing trustworthiness within community-academic partnerships. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 9(11), 751–753 (2020).
36.
Goodlett D, Hung A, Feriozzi A, Lu H, Bekelman JE, Mullins CD. Site engagement for multi-site clinical trials. Contemp. Clin. Trials Commun. 19, 100608 (2020).
37.
Paris A, Nogueira Da Gama Chaves D, Cornu C et al. Improvement of the comprehension of written information given to healthy volunteers in biomedical research: a single-blind randomized controlled study. Fundam. Clin. Pharmacol. 21(2), 207–214 (2007).
• Study demonstrating different strategies to improve consent forms.
38.
Simonds VW, Buchwald D. Too dense and too detailed: evaluation of the health literacy attributes of an informed consent document. J. Racial. Ethn. Health Disparities 7(2), 327–335 (2020).
39.
Kraft SA, Cho MK, Constantine M et al. A comparison of institutional review board professionals' and patients' views on consent for research on medical practices. Clin. Trials 13(5), 555–565 (2016).
40.
Bazzano LA, Durant J, Brantley PR. A modern history of informed consent and the role of key information. Ochsner J. 21(1), 81–85 (2021).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Pages: 1085 - 1094
PubMed: 36047333
Copyright
© 2022 The Authors. This work is licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Unported License
History
Received: 17 May 2022
Accepted: 8 August 2022
Published online: 1 September 2022
Keywords:
Topics
Authors
Funding Information
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: MAT-2017C2-7717
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
Promoting community stakeholder engagement in research on treatment for pregnant women with opioid use disorder. (2022) Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. DOI: 10.2217/cer-2022-0090
Export citation
Select the citation format you wish to export for this article or chapter.
Citing Literature
- Sarah K. Moore, Bethany McLeman, Elizabeth C. Saunders, Steven H. Chapman, Lisa A. Marsch, Brittney Ackerson, Amanda Cowan, Deanna P. Doss, Shauna Filion, Ryan Fowler, Lindsay Fox, John Gary, John Hamilton, Rich Jones, Ayana Jordan, Roxanne Kibben, Malika Lamont, Tricia Lawdahl, Jeremy Martin, Jay Pee, Jennifer Potter, Michelle Peavy, Thekla B. Ross, David Scott, Edward Suarez, Noel Vest, Hoa Vo, Carmen Rosa, The community representative council of the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network: Co-design and early impact, Journal of Substance Use and Addiction Treatment, 10.1016/j.josat.2026.210012, (210012), (2026).
- Alexindra Wheeler, Erin Major, Julyvette Vazquez, Latisha Goullaud, Frankie Kropp, Shelly F. Greenfield, Grace Humiston, Marcela C. Smid, Bettina B. Hoeppner, John T. Winhusen, Davida M. Schiff, Experiences of pregnant and postpartum people of color engaged in a randomized clinical trial of medication to treat opioid use disorder during pregnancy: A “Positive Outliers” analysis, Journal of Substance Use and Addiction Treatment, 10.1016/j.josat.2026.209988, (209988), (2026).
- Sarah K Moore, Jesse S Boggis, Phoebe R Gauthier, Chantal A Lambert-Harris, Emily G Hichborn, Kathleen D Bell, Elizabeth C Saunders, LaTrice Montgomery, Eilis I Murphy, Avery M Turner, Nico Agosti, Bethany M McLeman, Lisa A Marsch, Technology-Based Interventions for Substance Use Treatment Among People Who Identify as African American or Black, Hispanic or Latino, and American Indian or Alaska Native: Scoping Review, Journal of Medical Internet Research, 10.2196/53685, 26, (e53685), (2024).