Literature DB >> 23459832

Facilitating comparative effectiveness research in cancer genomics: evaluating stakeholder perceptions of the engagement process.

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.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23459832      PMCID: PMC3583228          DOI: 10.2217/cer.12.36

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comp Eff Res        ISSN: 2042-6305            Impact factor:   1.744


  17 in total

1.  How best to engage patients, doctors, and other stakeholders in designing comparative effectiveness studies.

Authors:  Ari Hoffman; Russ Montgomery; Wade Aubry; Sean R Tunis
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 6.301

Review 2.  Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda.

Authors:  Jonathan Boote; Rosemary Telford; Cindy Cooper
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 2.980

Review 3.  Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes.

Authors:  Julia Abelson; Pierre-Gerlier Forest; John Eyles; Patricia Smith; Elisabeth Martin; Francois-Pierre Gauvin
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 4.634

4.  Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.

Authors:  Hsiu-Fang Hsieh; Sarah E Shannon
Journal:  Qual Health Res       Date:  2005-11

5.  Comparative effectiveness research and evidence-based health policy: experience from four countries.

Authors:  Kalipso Chalkidou; Sean Tunis; Ruth Lopert; Lise Rochaix; Peter T Sawicki; Mona Nasser; Bertrand Xerri
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 4.911

Review 6.  Community-based participatory research: a review of the literature with strategies for community engagement.

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

7.  Can the impact of public involvement on research be evaluated? A mixed methods study.

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

8.  Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement.

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

9.  Users' guides to the medical literature: XXIII. Qualitative research in health care A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group.

Authors:  M K Giacomini; D J Cook
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000-07-19       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  What does it mean to involve consumers successfully in NHS research? A consensus study.

Authors:  Rosemary Telford; Jonathan D Boote; Cindy L Cooper
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 3.377

View more
  6 in total

1.  Older Adults' Perspectives on Clinical Research: A Focus Group and Survey Study.

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

2.  International Collaborative Research Partnerships: Blending Science with Management and Diplomacy.

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

3.  Comparative analysis of stakeholder experiences with an online approach to prioritizing patient-centered research topics.

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

4.  An evaluation of the comparative effectiveness of geriatrician-led comprehensive geriatric assessment for improving patient and healthcare system outcomes for older adults: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Charlene Soobiah; Caitlin Daly; Erik Blondal; Joycelyne Ewusie; Joanne Ho; Meghan J Elliott; Rossini Yue; Jayna Holroyd-Leduc; Barbara Liu; Sharon Marr; Jenny Basran; Andrea C Tricco; Jemila Hamid; Sharon E Straus
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2017-03-24

5.  Systematic Review of Quantitative Measures of Stakeholder Engagement.

Authors:  D J Bowen; T Hyams; M Goodman; K M West; J Harris-Wai; J-H Yu
Journal:  Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2017-05-29       Impact factor: 4.689

6.  Effective stakeholder engagement: design and implementation of a clinical trial (SWOG S1415CD) to improve cancer care.

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

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.