TY - JOUR
T1 - A practice-based tool for engaging stakeholders in future research
T2 - A synthesis of current practices
AU - Guise, Jeanne Marie
AU - O'Haire, Christen
AU - McPheeters, Melissa
AU - Most, Carole
AU - Labrant, Lia
AU - Lee, Kathy
AU - Barth Cottrell, Erika K.
AU - Graham, Elaine
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors extend their deepest appreciation for the contributions of the key informants and Evidence-based Practice Center participants who agreed to be interviewed for the project. This project was funded under Contract Nos. 290-2007-10057-I (Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center) and 290-2007-10065-I (Vanderbilt Evidence-based Practice Center) from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality , US Department of Health and Human Services.
Funding Information:
O’Haire C, McPheeters M, Nakamoto E, LaBrant L, Most C, Lee K, et al. Engaging stakeholders to identify and prioritize future research needs. Methods Future Research Needs Report No. 4. (Prepared by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center and the Vanderbilt Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10057-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 11-EHC044-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2011. Available at www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm . Accessed February 14, 2013.
PY - 2013/6
Y1 - 2013/6
N2 - Objective: A major goal of patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research is to increase the involvement of stakeholders throughout the research process to provide relevant and immediately actionable information. In this report, we review the current practices for engaging stakeholders in prioritizing research. Study Design and Setting: To evaluate the range of approaches to stakeholder engagement, we reviewed the relevant literature and conducted semistructured interviews with (1) leading research organizations in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom; and (2) eight Evidence-based Practice Centers that engage stakeholders in comparative effectiveness research. Results: We identified 56 articles related to stakeholder engagement in research prioritization. Studies and research organizations interviewed frequently used mixed methods approaches combining in-person venues with structured ranking or voting processes such as Delphi. EPCs similarly used group web/conference calls combined with Delphi ranking or voting. Research organizations reported difficulties engaging the public and policy makers, and EPCs reported challenges engaging federal stakeholders. Conclusion: Explicit and consistent use of terminology about stakeholders was absent. In-person techniques were useful to generate ideas and clarify issues, and quantitative methods were important in the prioritization of research. Recommendations for effective stakeholder engagement and a reporting checklist were developed from the accumulation of findings.
AB - Objective: A major goal of patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research is to increase the involvement of stakeholders throughout the research process to provide relevant and immediately actionable information. In this report, we review the current practices for engaging stakeholders in prioritizing research. Study Design and Setting: To evaluate the range of approaches to stakeholder engagement, we reviewed the relevant literature and conducted semistructured interviews with (1) leading research organizations in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom; and (2) eight Evidence-based Practice Centers that engage stakeholders in comparative effectiveness research. Results: We identified 56 articles related to stakeholder engagement in research prioritization. Studies and research organizations interviewed frequently used mixed methods approaches combining in-person venues with structured ranking or voting processes such as Delphi. EPCs similarly used group web/conference calls combined with Delphi ranking or voting. Research organizations reported difficulties engaging the public and policy makers, and EPCs reported challenges engaging federal stakeholders. Conclusion: Explicit and consistent use of terminology about stakeholders was absent. In-person techniques were useful to generate ideas and clarify issues, and quantitative methods were important in the prioritization of research. Recommendations for effective stakeholder engagement and a reporting checklist were developed from the accumulation of findings.
KW - Comparative effectiveness research
KW - Consumer participation
KW - Delphi technique
KW - Evidence-based medicine
KW - Qualitative research
KW - Research design
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84876902259&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84876902259&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.12.010
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.12.010
M3 - Article
C2 - 23497857
AN - SCOPUS:84876902259
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 66
SP - 666
EP - 674
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
IS - 6
ER -