A systematic review of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research

Conceptual and practical foundations of patient engagement in research at the patient-centered outcomes research institute

PURPOSE

To provide an overview of PCORI's approach to engagement in research.

METHODS

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) was established in 2010 to fund patient-centered comparative effectiveness research. Requirements for research funding from PCORI include meaningful engagement of patients and other stakeholders in the research. PCORI's approach to engagement in research is guided by a conceptual model of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR), that provides a structure for understanding engagement in research.

RESULTS

To understand and improve engagement in research PCORI is learning from awardees and other stakeholders. Those efforts are described along with PCORI's capacity building and guidance to awardees via the Engagement Rubric. PCORI's unique model of engaging patients and other stakeholders in merit review of funding applications is also described. Additional support for learning about engagement in research is provided through specific research funding and through PCORI's major infrastructure initiative, PCORnet.

CONCLUSION

PCORI requires engagement of stakeholders in the research it funds. In addition PCORI engages stakeholders in activities including review of funding applications and establishment of CER research infrastructure through PCORnet. The comprehensive approach to engagement is being evaluated to help guide the field toward promising practices in research engagement.

Clinical Comparative Effectiveness Research Through the Lens of Healthcare Decisionmakers

BACKGROUND

Healthcare expenditures in the United States exceed the healthcare expenditures of other countries, yet relatively unfavorable health outcomes persist. Despite the emergence of numerous evidence-based interventions, wide variations in clinical care have caused disparities in quality of care and cost. Comparative effectiveness and cost effectiveness research may better guide healthcare decisionmakers in determining which interventions work best, for which populations, under which conditions, and at what cost.

METHODS

This article reviews national health policies that promote comparative effectiveness research (CER), healthcare decisionmaker roles in CER, methodological approaches to CER, and future implications of CER.

RESULTS

This article provides a brief summary of CER health policy up to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and its establishment of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Through PCORI, participatory methods for engaging healthcare decisionmakers in the entire CER process have gained momentum as a strategy for improving the relevance of research and expediting the translation of research into practice. Well-designed, methodologically rigorous observational studies and randomized trials conducted in real-world settings have the potential to improve the quality, generalizability, and transferability of study findings.

CONCLUSION

Learning health systems and practice-based research networks provide the infrastructure for advancing CER methods, generating local solutions to high-quality cost-effective care, and transitioning research into implementation and dissemination science-all of which will ultimately guide health policy on clinical care, payment for care, and population health.

Project Stakeholder Management in the Clinical Research Environment: How to Do it Right

This review introduces a conceptual framework for understanding stakeholder management (ShM) in the clinical and community-based research environment. In recent years, an evolution in practice has occurred in many applicants for public and non-governmental funding of public health research in hospital settings. Community health research projects are inherently complex, have sought to involve patients and other stakeholders in the center of the research process. Substantial evidence has now been provided that stakeholder involvement is essential for management effectiveness in clinical research. Feedback from stakeholders has critical value for research managers inasmuch as it alerts them to the social, environmental, and ethical implications of research activities. Additionally, those who are directly affected by program development and clinical research, the patients, their families, and others, almost universally have a strong motivation to be involved in the planning and execution of new program changes. The current overview introduces a conceptual framework for ShM in the clinical research environment and offers practical suggestions for fostering meaningful stakeholder engagement. The fifth edition of PMBOK(®) of the Project Management Institute, has served as basis for many of the suggested guidelines that are put forward in this article.

Approaching patient engagement in research: what do patients with cardiovascular disease think?

Movement toward patient-centered health care must be supported by an evidence base informed by greater patient engagement in research. Efforts to better understand patients' interest in and perspectives on involvement in the research process are fundamental to supporting movement of research programs toward greater patient engagement. We describe preliminary efforts to engage members of a community group of patients living with heart disease to better understand their interest and perspectives on involvement in research. A semi-structured focus group guide was developed to probe willingness to participate in the following three phases of research: preparation, execution, and translation. The focus group discussion, and our summary of key messages gleaned from said discussion, was organized around the phases of research that patients may be involved in, with the goal of delineating degrees of interest expressed for engagement in each phase. Consistent with what is known from the literature, a clear preference for engagement during the preparation and translation phase of the research process emerged. This preliminary conversation will guide our ongoing research efforts toward greater inclusion of patients throughout the research process.