Lori A Bastian1,2, Steven P Cohen3, Lily Katsovich2, William C Becker1,2, Bradley R Brummett4,5, Diana J Burgess6,7, Andrea E Crunkhorn8, Lauren M Denneson9, Joseph W Frank10,11, Christine Goertz12, Brian Ilfeld13, Kathryn E Kanzler14, Akshaya Krishnaswamy15,16, Kathryn LaChappelle1, Steve Martino1,2, Kristin Mattocks4,5, Cindy A McGeary14, Thomas E Reznik17,18, Daniel I Rhon19,20, Stacie A Salsbury21, Karen H Seal15,16, Alicia M Semiatin22, Marlena H Shin23, Corey B Simon12, Deydre S Teyhen24, Kara Zamora15,16, Robert D Kerns1,2. 1. VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT. 2. Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT. 3. The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 4. VA Central Western Massachusetts Healthcare System, Leeds, MA. 5. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. 6. VA Minneapolis Healthcare System, Minneapolis, MN. 7. University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN. 8. Defense Health Headquarters, Falls Church, VA. 9. VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, OR. 10. VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Aurora, CO. 11. University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO. 12. Duke University, Durham, NC. 13. University of California, San Diego, CA. 14. University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX. 15. San Francisco VA Health Care System, San Francisco, CA. 16. University of California, San Francisco, CA. 17. Providence VA Medical Center, Providence, RI. 18. Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI. 19. Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, TX. 20. Uniformed Services, University of Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD. 21. Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research, Palmer College of Chiropractic, Davenport, IA. 22. Manchester VA Medical Center, Manchester, NH. 23. VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA. 24. Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Silver Spring, MD.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The NIH-DOD-VA Pain Management Collaboratory (PMC) supports 11 pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) on nonpharmacological approaches to management of pain and co-occurring conditions in U.S. military and veteran health organizations. The Stakeholder Engagement Work Group is supported by a separately funded Coordinating Center and was formed with the goal of developing respectful and productive partnerships that will maximize the ability to generate trustworthy, internally valid findings directly relevant to veterans and military service members with pain, front-line primary care clinicians and health care teams, and health system leaders. The Stakeholder Engagement Work Group provides a forum to promote success of the PCTs in which principal investigators and/or their designees discuss various stakeholder engagement strategies, address challenges, and share experiences. Herein, we communicate features of meaningful stakeholder engagement in the design and implementation of pain management pragmatic trials, across the PMC. DESIGN: Our collective experiences suggest that an optimal stakeholder-engaged research project involves understanding the following: i) Who are research stakeholders in PMC trials? ii) How do investigators ensure that stakeholders represent the interests of a study's target treatment population, including individuals from underrepresented groups?, and iii) How can sustained stakeholder relationships help overcome implementation challenges over the course of a PCT? SUMMARY: Our experiences outline the role of stakeholders in pain research and may inform future pragmatic trial researchers regarding methods to engage stakeholders effectively. The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.
BACKGROUND: The NIH-DOD-VA Pain Management Collaboratory (PMC) supports 11 pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) on nonpharmacological approaches to management of pain and co-occurring conditions in U.S. military and veteran health organizations. The Stakeholder Engagement Work Group is supported by a separately funded Coordinating Center and was formed with the goal of developing respectful and productive partnerships that will maximize the ability to generate trustworthy, internally valid findings directly relevant to veterans and military service members with pain, front-line primary care clinicians and health care teams, and health system leaders. The Stakeholder Engagement Work Group provides a forum to promote success of the PCTs in which principal investigators and/or their designees discuss various stakeholder engagement strategies, address challenges, and share experiences. Herein, we communicate features of meaningful stakeholder engagement in the design and implementation of pain management pragmatic trials, across the PMC. DESIGN: Our collective experiences suggest that an optimal stakeholder-engaged research project involves understanding the following: i) Who are research stakeholders in PMC trials? ii) How do investigators ensure that stakeholders represent the interests of a study's target treatment population, including individuals from underrepresented groups?, and iii) How can sustained stakeholder relationships help overcome implementation challenges over the course of a PCT? SUMMARY: Our experiences outline the role of stakeholders in pain research and may inform future pragmatic trial researchers regarding methods to engage stakeholders effectively. The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.
Entities:
Keywords:
complementary therapies; military health services; pain management; pragmatic clinical trials; stakeholder participation; veterans health services
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: Thomas W Concannon; Sean Grant; Vivian Welch; Jennifer Petkovic; Joseph Selby; Sally Crowe; Anneliese Synnot; Regina Greer-Smith; Evan Mayo-Wilson; Ellen Tambor; Peter Tugwell Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-12-18 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Elizabeth A Evans; Patricia M Herman; Donna L Washington; Karl A Lorenz; Anita Yuan; Dawn M Upchurch; Nell Marshall; Alison B Hamilton; Stephanie L Taylor Journal: Womens Health Issues Date: 2018-08-31
Authors: Thomas W Concannon; Melissa Fuster; Tully Saunders; Kamal Patel; John B Wong; Laurel K Leslie; Joseph Lau Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-06-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Mary A Driscoll; M Tish Knobf; Diana M Higgins; Alicia Heapy; Allison Lee; Sally Haskell Journal: Pain Med Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Mary A Driscoll; Diana Higgins; Andrea Shamaskin-Garroway; Amanda Burger; Eugenia Buta; Joseph L Goulet; Alicia Heapy; Robert D Kerns; Cynthia A Brandt; Sally G Haskell Journal: Pain Med Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Joseph Ali; Alison F Davis; Diana J Burgess; Daniel I Rhon; Robert Vining; Stacey Young-McCaughan; Sean Green; Robert D Kerns Journal: Learn Health Syst Date: 2021-10-19
Authors: Alan R Teo; Aaron A Call; Elizabeth R Hooker; Clarissa Fong; Elizabeth Karras; Steven K Dobscha Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2022-09-05