Literature DB >> 28485177

Querying stakeholders to inform comparative effectiveness research.

Yoon Duk Hong1, Daisuke Goto1, C Daniel Mullins1.   

Abstract

Despite the growing recognition of the value of stakeholder engagement in research, there is limited guidance on effectively eliciting stakeholder views during the comparative effectiveness research (CER) process. This article outlines the potential role of each stakeholder (patient, provider, policymaker and payer) throughout the CER process and provides examples of practical questions that researchers can ask the four primary stakeholder groups at each step of the CER process. This guide aims to assist in the development of meaningful stakeholder-researcher shared decision-making to incorporate stakeholder views in the design, conduct and dissemination of patient-centered CER.

Entities:  

Keywords:  comparative effectiveness research; stakeholder engagement; stakeholder views

Year:  2017        PMID: 28485177      PMCID: PMC5680160          DOI: 10.2217/cer-2016-0082

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


  54 in total

1.  Using science to improve the nation's health system: NIH's commitment to comparative effectiveness research.

Authors:  Michael S Lauer; Francis S Collins
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2010-06-02       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Professionals and the public: power or partnership in health research?

Authors:  Lisa Robinson; Julia Newton; Pam Dawson
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2010-11-30       Impact factor: 2.431

3.  Process for guideline development by the reconstituted Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.

Authors:  Sarah Connor Gorber; Harminder Singh; Kevin Pottie; Alejandra Jaramillo; Marcello Tonelli
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2012-08-13       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  AHRQ series paper 3: identifying, selecting, and refining topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews: AHRQ and the effective health-care program.

Authors:  Evelyn P Whitlock; Sarah A Lopez; Stephanie Chang; Mark Helfand; Michelle Eder; Nicole Floyd
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2009-06-21       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Comparative effectiveness research: a report from the Institute of Medicine.

Authors:  Harold C Sox; Sheldon Greenfield
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  The promise of comparative effectiveness research.

Authors:  Paul Sullivan; Don Goldmann
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2011-01-26       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Unresolved tensions in consumer engagement in CER: a US research perspective.

Authors:  Thomas Workman; Maureen Maurer; Kristin Carman
Journal:  J Comp Eff Res       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 1.744

8.  Prioritizing comparative effectiveness research for cancer diagnostics using a regional stakeholder approach.

Authors:  Gregory Klein; Laura S Gold; Sean D Sullivan; Diana S M Buist; Scott Ramsey; Karma Kreizenbeck; Kyle Snell; Elizabeth Trice Loggers; Joseph Gifford; John B Watkins; Larry Kessler
Journal:  J Comp Eff Res       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 1.744

9.  PAYER PERSPECTIVES ON FUTURE ACCEPTABILITY OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS AND RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH.

Authors:  Rachael Moloney; Penny Mohr; Emma Hawe; Koonal Shah; Martina Garau; Adrian Towse
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 2.188

10.  Patient and Stakeholder Engagement in the PCORI Pilot Projects: Description and Lessons Learned.

Authors:  Laura P Forsythe; Lauren E Ellis; Lauren Edmundson; Raj Sabharwal; Alison Rein; Kristen Konopka; Lori Frank
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-07-10       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.