AIMS: The Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research in Cancer Genomics completed a 2-year stakeholder-guided process for the prioritization of genomic tests for comparative effectiveness research studies. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of engagement procedures in achieving project goals and to identify opportunities for future improvements. MATERIALS & METHODS: The evaluation included an online questionnaire, one-on-one telephone interviews and facilitated discussion. Responses to the online questionnaire were tabulated for descriptive purposes, while transcripts from key informant interviews were analyzed using a directed content analysis approach. RESULTS: A total of 11 out of 13 stakeholders completed both the online questionnaire and interview process, while nine participated in the facilitated discussion. Eighty-nine percent of questionnaire items received overall ratings of agree or strongly agree; 11% of responses were rated as neutral with the exception of a single rating of disagreement with an item regarding the clarity of how stakeholder input was incorporated into project decisions. Recommendations for future improvement included developing standard recruitment practices, role descriptions and processes for improved communication with clinical and comparative effectiveness research investigators. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of the stakeholder engagement process provided constructive feedback for future improvements and should be routinely conducted to ensure maximal effectiveness of stakeholder involvement.
AIMS: The Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research in Cancer Genomics completed a 2-year stakeholder-guided process for the prioritization of genomic tests for comparative effectiveness research studies. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of engagement procedures in achieving project goals and to identify opportunities for future improvements. MATERIALS & METHODS: The evaluation included an online questionnaire, one-on-one telephone interviews and facilitated discussion. Responses to the online questionnaire were tabulated for descriptive purposes, while transcripts from key informant interviews were analyzed using a directed content analysis approach. RESULTS: A total of 11 out of 13 stakeholders completed both the online questionnaire and interview process, while nine participated in the facilitated discussion. Eighty-nine percent of questionnaire items received overall ratings of agree or strongly agree; 11% of responses were rated as neutral with the exception of a single rating of disagreement with an item regarding the clarity of how stakeholder input was incorporated into project decisions. Recommendations for future improvement included developing standard recruitment practices, role descriptions and processes for improved communication with clinical and comparative effectiveness research investigators. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of the stakeholder engagement process provided constructive feedback for future improvements and should be routinely conducted to ensure maximal effectiveness of stakeholder involvement.
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: Patricia A Deverka; Danielle C Lavallee; Priyanka J Desai; Laura C Esmail; Scott D Ramsey; David L Veenstra; Sean R Tunis Journal: J Comp Eff Res Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 1.744
Authors: Eric J Lenze; Alex Ramsey; Patrick J Brown; Charles F Reynolds; Benoit H Mulsant; Helen Lavretsky; Steven P Roose Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2016-07-29 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Chuen-Yen Lau; Crystal Wang; Susan Orsega; Edmund C Tramont; Ousmane Koita; Michael A Polis; Sophia Siddiqui Journal: J AIDS Clin Res Date: 2014-12
Authors: Dmitry Khodyakov; Sean Grant; Daniella Meeker; Marika Booth; Nathaly Pacheco-Santivanez; Katherine K Kim Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Sarah Barger; Sean D Sullivan; Ari Bell-Brown; Brad Bott; Anne Marie Ciccarella; John Golenski; Mark Gorman; Judy Johnson; Karma Kreizenbeck; Florence Kurttila; Ginny Mason; Jamie Myers; Carole Seigel; James L Wade; Guneet Walia; Kate Watabayashi; Gary H Lyman; Scott D Ramsey Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 4.615