OBJECTIVE: Little evidence exists about effective and scalable methods for meaningful stakeholder engagement in research. We explored patient/caregiver experiences with a high-tech online engagement approach for patient-centered research prioritization, compared their experiences with those of professional stakeholders, and identified factors associated with favorable participant experiences. METHODS: We conducted 8 online modified-Delphi (OMD) panels. Panelists participated in 2 rating rounds with a statistical feedback/online discussion round in between. Panels focused on weight management/obesity, heart failure, and Kawasaki disease. We recruited a convenience sample of adults with any of the 3 conditions (or parents/guardians of Kawasaki disease patients), clinicians, and researchers. Measures included self-reported willingness to use OMD again, the panelists' study participation and online discussion experiences, the system's perceived ease of use, and active engagement metrics. RESULTS: Out of 349 panelists, 292 (84%) completed the study. Of those, 46% were patients, 36% were clinicians, and 19% were researchers. In multivariate models, patients were not significantly more actively engaged (Odds ratio (OR) = 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.94-3.05) but had more favorable study participation (β = 0.49; P ≤ .05) and online discussion (β = 0.18; P ≤ .05) experiences and were more willing to use OMD again (β = 0.36; P ≤ .05), compared to professional stakeholders. Positive perceptions of the OMD system's ease of use (β = 0.16; P ≤ .05) and favorable study participation (β = 0.26; P ≤ .05) and online discussion (β = 0.57; P ≤ .05) experiences were also associated with increased willingness to use OMD in the future. Active engagement was not associated with online experience indices or willingness to use OMD again. CONCLUSION: Online approaches to engaging large numbers of stakeholders are a promising and efficient adjunct to in-person meetings.
OBJECTIVE: Little evidence exists about effective and scalable methods for meaningful stakeholder engagement in research. We explored patient/caregiver experiences with a high-tech online engagement approach for patient-centered research prioritization, compared their experiences with those of professional stakeholders, and identified factors associated with favorable participant experiences. METHODS: We conducted 8 online modified-Delphi (OMD) panels. Panelists participated in 2 rating rounds with a statistical feedback/online discussion round in between. Panels focused on weight management/obesity, heart failure, and Kawasaki disease. We recruited a convenience sample of adults with any of the 3 conditions (or parents/guardians of Kawasaki disease patients), clinicians, and researchers. Measures included self-reported willingness to use OMD again, the panelists' study participation and online discussion experiences, the system's perceived ease of use, and active engagement metrics. RESULTS: Out of 349 panelists, 292 (84%) completed the study. Of those, 46% were patients, 36% were clinicians, and 19% were researchers. In multivariate models, patients were not significantly more actively engaged (Odds ratio (OR) = 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.94-3.05) but had more favorable study participation (β = 0.49; P ≤ .05) and online discussion (β = 0.18; P ≤ .05) experiences and were more willing to use OMD again (β = 0.36; P ≤ .05), compared to professional stakeholders. Positive perceptions of the OMD system's ease of use (β = 0.16; P ≤ .05) and favorable study participation (β = 0.26; P ≤ .05) and online discussion (β = 0.57; P ≤ .05) experiences were also associated with increased willingness to use OMD in the future. Active engagement was not associated with online experience indices or willingness to use OMD again. CONCLUSION: Online approaches to engaging large numbers of stakeholders are a promising and efficient adjunct to in-person meetings.
Authors: Thomas W Concannon; Paul Meissner; Jo Anne Grunbaum; Newell McElwee; Jeanne-Marie Guise; John Santa; Patrick H Conway; Denise Daudelin; Elaine H Morrato; Laurel K Leslie Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-04-13 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Claire E H Barber; Deborah A Marshall; Nanette Alvarez; G B John Mancini; Diane Lacaille; Stephanie Keeling; J Antonio Aviña-Zubieta; Dmitry Khodyakov; Cheryl Barnabe; Peter Faris; Alexa Smith; Raheem Noormohamed; Glen Hazlewood; Liam O Martin; John M Esdaile Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 4.666
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
Authors: Juan Pablo Domecq; Gabriela Prutsky; Tarig Elraiyah; Zhen Wang; Mohammed Nabhan; Nathan Shippee; Juan Pablo Brito; Kasey Boehmer; Rim Hasan; Belal Firwana; Patricia Erwin; David Eton; Jeff Sloan; Victor Montori; Noor Asi; Abd Moain Abu Dabrh; Mohammad Hassan Murad Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Lisa Rubenstein; Dmitry Khodyakov; Susanne Hempel; Margie Danz; Susanne Salem-Schatz; Robbie Foy; Sean O'Neill; Siddhartha Dalal; Paul Shekelle Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2013-12-04 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: Sean Grant; Glen S Hazlewood; Holly L Peay; Ann Lucas; Ian Coulter; Arlene Fink; Dmitry Khodyakov Journal: Patient Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Courtney Armstrong; Sean Grant; Kathi Kinnett; Brian Denger; Ann Martin; Ian Coulter; Marika Booth; Dmitry Khodyakov Journal: Eur J Pers Cent Healthc Date: 2019
Authors: Carolyn Petersen; Robin R Austin; Uba Backonja; Hugo Campos; Arlene E Chung; Eric B Hekler; Pei-Yun S Hsueh; Katherine K Kim; Anthony Pho; Liz Salmi; Anthony Solomonides; Rupa S Valdez Journal: JAMIA Open Date: 2019-12-03
Authors: Lisa M Bodnar; Dmitry Khodyakov; Sara M Parisi; Katherine P Himes; Jessica G Burke; Jennifer A Hutcheon Journal: Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol Date: 2020-11-20 Impact factor: 3.103
Authors: Matthew A Bartek; Anjali R Truitt; Sierra Widmer-Rodriguez; Jordan Tuia; Zoya A Bauer; Bryan A Comstock; Todd C Edwards; Sarah O Lawrence; Sarah E Monsell; Donald L Patrick; Jeffrey G Jarvik; Danielle C Lavallee Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-10-06 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Katherine K Kim; Dmitry Khodyakov; Kate Marie; Howard Taras; Daniella Meeker; Hugo O Campos; Lucila Ohno-Machado Journal: Med Care Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 2.983