Skip to main content
Search
Search
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation
Open access
Research Article
15 November 2022

An evaluation of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness research: lessons learned from SWOG S1415CD

Authors: Ari Bell-Brown https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3346-914X [email protected], Kate Watabayashi, Karma Kreizenbeck, Scott D Ramsey, Aasthaa Bansal, William E Barlow, Gary H Lyman, … Show All … , Dawn L Hershman, Anne Marie Mercurio https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3380-1838, Barbara Segarra-Vazquez, Florence Kurttila, Jamie S Myers, John D Golenski, Judy Johnson, Robert L Erwin, Guneet Walia, Jeffrey Crawford, and Sean D SullivanAuthor Info & Affiliations
Volume 11, Number 18
https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2022-0158
PDFFormats

Abstract

Aim: Stakeholder engagement is central to comparative effectiveness research yet there are gaps in definitions of success. We used a framework developed by Lavallee et al. defining effective engagement criteria to evaluate stakeholder engagement during a pragmatic cluster-randomized trial. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were developed from the framework and completed to learn about members' experiences. Interviews were analyzed in a deductive approach for themes related to the effective engagement criteria. Results: Thirteen members participated and described: respect for ideas, time to achieve consensus, access to information and continuous feedback as areas of effective engagement. The primary criticism was lack of diversity. Discussion: Feedback was positive, particularly among themes of respect, trust and competence, and led to development of a list of best practices for engagement. The framework was successful for evaluating engagement. Conclusion: Standardized frameworks allow studies to formally evaluate their stakeholder engagement approach and develop best practices for future research.

Plain language summary

What is this article about? This article is about the evaluation of how effective the stakeholder engagement was in a comparative effectiveness research (CER) study funded by the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). The research team found a framework (developed by Lavalle et al.) that defined six different criteria for effective stakeholder engagement, and used that criteria to complete semi-structured interviews with the stakeholders involved with our study. These interviews were reviewed to determine what stakeholder engagement processes were successful and helped provide a list of best practices for stakeholder engagement for other researchers doing CER.
What were the results? Stakeholders highlighted respect for their ideas, time to achieve consensus, easy access to information and a continuous feedback loop between study team and stakeholders as effective engagement processes.
What do the results mean? These results can help other researchers doing CER learn best practices to implement from the outset of a study to best engage stakeholders in their research. The results also show that having a standardized framework to evaluate stakeholder engagement is important and allows for research teams to formally evaluate their engagement approach and learn what was successful and where there are areas for improvement in future studies.

Supplementary Material

File (supplementary material.docx)

References

1.
Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Research we support (2021). www.pcori.org/research/about-our-research/research-we-support
Google Scholar
2.
Sox HC, Greenfield S. Comparative effectiveness research: a report from the Institute of Medicine. Ann. Intern. Med. 151(3), 203–205 (2009).
PubMed
Google Scholar
3.
Selby JV, Beal AC, Frank L. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) national priorities for research and initial research agenda. JAMA 307(15), 1583–1584 (2012).
PubMed
Google Scholar
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).
PubMed
Google Scholar
5.
Martinez J, Wong C, Piersol CV, Bieber DC, Perry BL, Leland NE. Stakeholder engagement in research: a scoping review of current evaluation methods. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 8(15), 1327–1341 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
6.
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).
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
7.
Lavallee DC, Williams CJ, Tambor ES, Deverka PA. Stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness research: how will we measure success? J. Comp. Eff. Res. 1(5), 397–407 (2012).
PubMed
Google Scholar
8.
Bansal A, Sullivan SD, Hershman DL et al. A stakeholder-informed randomized, controlled comparative effectiveness study of an order prescribing intervention to improve colony stimulating factor use for cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy: the TrACER study. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 6(5), 461–470 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
9.
Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Pragmatic clinical studies (2022). www.pcori.org/research/about-our-research/pragmatic-clinical-studies
Google Scholar
10.
National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program. About NCORP (2022). https://ncorp.cancer.gov/about/
Google Scholar
11.
Barger S, Sullivan SD, Bell-Brown A et al. Effective stakeholder engagement: design and implementation of a clinical trial (SWOG S1415CD) to improve cancer care. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 19(1), 119 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
12.
SWOG Cancer Research Network. Our advocates (2022). www.swog.org/swog-network/our-advocates
Google Scholar
13.
Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute. PCORI engagement rubric (2016). www.pcori.org/sites/default/files/Engagement-Rubric.pdf
Google Scholar
14.
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).
PubMed
Google Scholar
15.
Abelson J, Forest P-G, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E, Gauvin F-P. Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc. Sci. Med. 57, 239–251 (2003).
PubMed
Google Scholar
16.
Beierle TC, Konisky DM. Values, conflict, and trust in participatory environmental planning. J. Policy Anal. Manage. 19, 587–602 (2000).
Google Scholar
17.
Renn. O. R. Risk communication: towards a rational discourse with the public. J. Hazard. Matter 29, 465–519 (1992).
Google Scholar
18.
Santos SL, Chess C. Evaluating citizen advisory boards: the importance of theory and participant-based criteria and practical implications. Risk Anal. 23(2), 269–279 (2003).
PubMed
Google Scholar
19.
T W. ‘Right’ discourse in citizen participation: an evaluative yardstick. In: Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Renn O, Webler T, Wiedelmann P (Eds). Kluwar Academic Press, MA, USA, 35–86 (1995).
Google Scholar
20.
American Institutes for Research (AIR). American Institutes for Research (2022). www.air.org/
Google Scholar
|