Ellis C Dillon1, Leah Tuzzio2, Sarah Madrid3, Heather Olden4, Robert T Greenlee5. 1. Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. 2. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA. 3. Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Denver, CO. 4. Department of Public Health Sciences, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI. 5. Marshfield Clinic Research Institute, Marshfield, WI.
Abstract
PURPOSE: While strategies to evaluate the influence of engaging patient partners in research, such as the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) WE-ENACT surveys, are beginning to emerge, a systematic set of measures for assessing the impact of patient engagement in research (PER) on study approaches and outcomes is lacking. This article describes a workshop and process used to identify and develop Critical Outcomes of Research Engagement (COREs). It proposes preliminary measures for assessing the impact of PER on the research process and outcomes of research studies. METHODS: A group of 24 researchers and 5 patient partners participated in a PCORI-funded workshop designed to identify key research outcomes and corresponding measures to evaluate the impact of patient-engaged research on those outcomes. Interactive group discussion and synthesis by workshop attendees led to a proposed set of core components of patient-engaged research by each stage of a research study as well as some overarching principles. Postworkshop discussions further distilled the output and considered potential gaps. RESULTS: CORE components identified were: patient-centered, meaningful, team collaboration, understandable, rigorous, adaptable/integrity, legitimate, feasible, ethical and transparent, timely, and sustainable. Existing measures skew more toward measuring the process of engagement and less toward measuring downstream outcomes of patient-partner engagement in all phases of research. CONCLUSIONS: Next steps include finalizing measures, pilot testing them with the workshop participants, and building a larger community of practice to further advance this work. The new community plans to create a measurement tool and conduct a study to validate the measures.
PURPOSE: While strategies to evaluate the influence of engaging patient partners in research, such as the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) WE-ENACT surveys, are beginning to emerge, a systematic set of measures for assessing the impact of patient engagement in research (PER) on study approaches and outcomes is lacking. This article describes a workshop and process used to identify and develop Critical Outcomes of Research Engagement (COREs). It proposes preliminary measures for assessing the impact of PER on the research process and outcomes of research studies. METHODS: A group of 24 researchers and 5 patient partners participated in a PCORI-funded workshop designed to identify key research outcomes and corresponding measures to evaluate the impact of patient-engaged research on those outcomes. Interactive group discussion and synthesis by workshop attendees led to a proposed set of core components of patient-engaged research by each stage of a research study as well as some overarching principles. Postworkshop discussions further distilled the output and considered potential gaps. RESULTS: CORE components identified were: patient-centered, meaningful, team collaboration, understandable, rigorous, adaptable/integrity, legitimate, feasible, ethical and transparent, timely, and sustainable. Existing measures skew more toward measuring the process of engagement and less toward measuring downstream outcomes of patient-partner engagement in all phases of research. CONCLUSIONS: Next steps include finalizing measures, pilot testing them with the workshop participants, and building a larger community of practice to further advance this work. The new community plans to create a measurement tool and conduct a study to validate the measures.
Entities:
Keywords:
measurement; methods; patient engagement; research
Authors: Jo Brett; Sophie Staniszewska; Carole Mockford; Sandra Herron-Marx; John Hughes; Colin Tysall; Rashida Suleman Journal: Health Expect Date: 2012-07-19 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: Lori Frank; Laura Forsythe; Lauren Ellis; Suzanne Schrandt; Sue Sheridan; Jason Gerson; Kristen Konopka; Sarah Daugherty Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-01-06 Impact factor: 4.147
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
Authors: P Roche; C Shimmin; S Hickes; M Khan; O Sherzoi; E Wicklund; J G Lavoie; S Hardie; K D M Wittmeier; K M Sibley Journal: Res Involv Engagem Date: 2020-07-19
Authors: Sevgi E Fruytier; Lidewij Eva Vat; Rob Camp; François Houÿez; Hilde De Keyser; Denise Dunne; Davide Marchi; Laura McKeaveney; Richard H Pitt; Carina A C M Pittens; Meagan F Vaughn; Elena Zhuravleva; Tjerk Jan Schuitmaker-Warnaar Journal: J Patient Cent Res Rev Date: 2022-01-17
Authors: Trisha Greenhalgh; Lisa Hinton; Teresa Finlay; Alastair Macfarlane; Nick Fahy; Ben Clyde; Alan Chant Journal: Health Expect Date: 2019-04-22 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Lidewij Eva Vat; Teresa Finlay; Tjerk Jan Schuitmaker-Warnaar; Nick Fahy; Paul Robinson; Mathieu Boudes; Ana Diaz; Elisa Ferrer; Virginie Hivert; Gabor Purman; Marie-Laure Kürzinger; Robert A Kroes; Claudia Hey; Jacqueline E W Broerse Journal: Health Expect Date: 2019-09-06 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: S Gregory; E M Bunnik; A B Callado; I Carrie; C De Boer; J Duffus; K Fauria; S Forster; D Gove; I Knezevic; A Laquidain; D Pennetier; S Saunders; S Sparks; J Rice; C W Ritchie; R Milne Journal: Res Involv Engagem Date: 2020-10-15