AIMS: Stakeholder engagement is fundamental to comparative effectiveness research (CER), but lacks consistent terminology. This paper aims to define stakeholder engagement and present a conceptual model for involving stakeholders in CER. MATERIALS #ENTITYSTARTX00026; METHODS: The definitions and model were developed from a literature search, expert input and experience with the Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research in Cancer Genomics, a proof-of-concept platform for stakeholder involvement in priority setting and CER study design. RESULTS: Definitions for stakeholder and stakeholder engagement reflect the target constituencies and their role in CER. The 'analytic-deliberative' conceptual model for stakeholder engagement illustrates the inputs, methods and outputs relevant to CER. The model differentiates methods at each stage of the project; depicts the relationship between components; and identifies outcome measures for evaluation of the process. CONCLUSION: While the definitions and model require testing before being broadly adopted, they are an important foundational step and will be useful for investigators, funders and stakeholder groups interested in contributing to CER.
AIMS: Stakeholder engagement is fundamental to comparative effectiveness research (CER), but lacks consistent terminology. This paper aims to define stakeholder engagement and present a conceptual model for involving stakeholders in CER. MATERIALS #ENTITYSTARTX00026; METHODS: The definitions and model were developed from a literature search, expert input and experience with the Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research in Cancer Genomics, a proof-of-concept platform for stakeholder involvement in priority setting and CER study design. RESULTS: Definitions for stakeholder and stakeholder engagement reflect the target constituencies and their role in CER. The 'analytic-deliberative' conceptual model for stakeholder engagement illustrates the inputs, methods and outputs relevant to CER. The model differentiates methods at each stage of the project; depicts the relationship between components; and identifies outcome measures for evaluation of the process. CONCLUSION: While the definitions and model require testing before being broadly adopted, they are an important foundational step and will be useful for investigators, funders and stakeholder groups interested in contributing to CER.
Authors: Hussein Z Noorani; Donald R Husereau; Rhonda Boudreau; Becky Skidmore Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2007 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: Madeleine U Shalowitz; Anthony Isacco; Nora Barquin; Elizabeth Clark-Kauffman; Patti Delger; Devon Nelson; Anthony Quinn; Kimberly A Wagenaar Journal: J Dev Behav Pediatr Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 2.225
Authors: Rosemary Barber; Jonathan D Boote; Glenys D Parry; Cindy L Cooper; Philippa Yeeles; Sarah Cook Journal: Health Expect Date: 2011-02-17 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Sonja Likumahuwa-Ackman; Heather Angier; Aleksandra Sumic; Rose L Harding; Erika K Cottrell; Deborah J Cohen; Christine A Nelson; Timothy E Burdick; Lorraine S Wallace; Charles Gallia; Jennifer E DeVoe Journal: J Comp Eff Res Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 1.744
Authors: Christopher M Shea; Tiffany L Young; Byron J Powell; Catherine Rohweder; Zoe K Enga; Jennifer E Scott; Lori Carter-Edwards; Giselle Corbie-Smith Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Patricia A Deverka; Danielle C Lavallee; Priyanka J Desai; Joanne Armstrong; Mark Gorman; Leah Hole-Curry; James O'Leary; B W Ruffner; John Watkins; David L Veenstra; Laurence H Baker; Joseph M Unger; Scott D Ramsey Journal: J Comp Eff Res Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 1.744