Engaging Patients and Other Non-Researchers in Health Research: Defining Research Engagement

Methodological quality and clinical recommendations of guidelines on the management of dyslipidaemias for cardiovascular disease risk reduction: a systematic review and an appraisal through AGREE II and AGREE REX tools

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are statements to assist practitioners and stakeholders in decisions about healthcare. Low methodological quality guidelines may prejudice decision-making and negatively affect clinical outcomes in non-communicable diseases, such as cardiovascular diseases worsted by poor lipid management. We appraised the quality of CPGs on dyslipidemia management and synthesized the most updated pharmacological recommendations.

METHODS

A systematic review following international recommendations was performed. Searches to retrieve CPG on pharmacological treatments in adults with dyslipidaemia were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Trip databases. Eligible articles were assessed using AGREE II (methodological quality) and AGREE-REX (recommendation excellence) tools. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data. The most updated guidelines (published after 2019) had their recommendations qualitatively synthesized in an exploratory analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 66 guidelines authored by professional societies (75%) and targeting clinicians as primary users were selected. The AGREE II domains Scope and Purpose (89%) and Clarity of Presentation (97%), and the AGREE-REX item Clinical Applicability (77.0%) obtained the highest values. Conversely, guidelines were methodologically poorly performed/documented (46%) and scarcely provided data on the implementability of practical recommendations (38%). Recommendations on pharmacological treatments are overall similar, with slight differences concerning the use of supplements and the availability of drugs.

CONCLUSION

High-quality dyslipidaemia CPG, especially outside North America and Europe, and strictly addressing evidence synthesis, appraisal, and recommendations are needed, especially to guide primary care decisions. CPG developers should consider stakeholders' values and preferences and adapt existing statements to individual populations and healthcare systems to ensure successful implementation interventions.

Research Priorities for Childhood Apraxia of Speech: A Long View

This article introduces the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Special Issue: Selected Papers From the 2022 Apraxia Kids Research Symposium. The field of childhood apraxia of speech (CAS) has developed significantly in the past 15 years, with key improvements in understanding of basic biology including genetics, neuroscience, and computational modelling; development of diagnostic tools and methods; diversity of evidence-based interventions with increasingly rigorous experimental designs; and understanding of impacts beyond impairment-level measures. Papers in this special issue not only review and synthesize the some of the substantial progress to date but also present novel findings addressing critical research gaps and adding to the overall body of knowledge. A second aim of this prologue is to report the current research needs in CAS, which arose from symposium discussions involving researchers, clinicians, and Apraxia Kids community members (including parents of children with CAS). Four primary areas of need emerged from discussions at the symposium. These were: (a) What questions should we ask? (b) Who should be in the research? (c) How do we conduct the research? and (d) How do we move from research to practice? Across themes, symposium attendees emphasized the need for CAS research to better account for the diversity of people with CAS and improve the timeliness of implementation of high-level evidence-based practice across the lifespan. It is our goal that the articles and prologue discussion in this special issue provide an appreciation of advancements in CAS research and an updated view of the most pressing needs for future research.

A protocol for stakeholder engagement in head and neck cancer pragmatic trials

Meaningful engagement with stakeholders in research demands intentional approaches. This paper describes the development of a framework to guide stakeholder engagement as research partners in a pragmatic trial proposed to evaluate behavioral interventions for dysphagia in head and neck cancer patients. We highlight the core principles of stakeholder engagement including representation of all perspectives, meaningful participation, respectful partnership with stakeholders, and accountability to stakeholders; and describe how these principles were operationalized to engage relevant stakeholders throughout the course of a large clinical trial.

Patient engagement in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and cell therapy: a survey by the EBMT patient engagement task force & transplantation complications working party

The EBMT (European Blood and Marrow Transplantation Society) aims to connect patients, the scientific community, and other stakeholders to improve hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and cellular therapy outcomes. We performed a cross-sectional online survey to understand the perceptions regarding Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Patient Active Involvement in Research (PAIR) in over 800 stakeholders (n = 813). Patients (n = 278) and health care professionals (HCPs) (n = 351) were compared. We observed high openness for EBMT PRO collection (n = 680, 84.5% across stakeholders' groups; patients n = 256, 93.1% versus HCPs n = 273, 78.4% [p < 0.001]) and PAIR (n = 702, 87.3% across stakeholder groups; patients n = 256, 92.4% versus HCPs n = 296, 85.8% [p = 0.009]), with a significantly higher proportion of patients expressing interest compared to HCPs. Priority domains for PROs data-collection identified were the assessment of symptom experience, psychosocial and cognitive functioning. The most important issues for patients specifically were the data-collection of PROs reflecting cognitive function, the option of reporting data at home, the importance of identifying actionable targets to improve their recovery, and receiving feedback on their input when participating in research projects. Our multistakeholder approach suggests an added value to embracing patient engagement in the development of meaningful research and service design within the transplantation and cellular therapy community.

Promoting Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice in Grantmaking for Health Care Research: A Pragmatic Review and Framework

Funders of research have an opportunity to advance health equity and social justice by incorporating principles of diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (DEIJ) in their approach to grantmaking. We conducted a pragmatic review to identify opportunities for grantmakers in the health care sector to integrate DEIJ in their funding activities. The resulting framework discusses recommendations within three phases as follows: (1) Organizational Context (i.e., initiate DEIJ efforts within the grantmaking organization, invest in community partnerships, and establish DEIJ goals), (2) Grantmaking Process (i.e., DEIJ-specific practices related to grant design, application, proposal review processes, and support for grantees), and (3) Assessment of Process and Outcomes (i.e., measurement, evaluation, and dissemination to maximize impact of DEIJ efforts). Throughout all grantmaking phases, it is critical to partner with and engage individuals and communities that have been historically marginalized in health care and research. In this article, we describe how adoption of framework practices can leverage grantmaking to advance DEIJ for communities, researchers, and projects.

Future Directions for Community-Engaged Research in Clinical Psychological Science with Youth

Despite advances in clinical science, the burden of mental health problems among youth is not improving. To tackle this burden, clinical science with youth needs methods that include youth and family perspectives on context and public health. In this paper, we illustrate how community-engaged research (CEnR) methods center these perspectives. Although CEnR methods are well-established in other disciplines (e.g. social work, community psychology), they are underutilized in clinical science with youth. This is due in part to misperceptions of CEnR as resource-intensive, overly contextualized, incompatible with experimentally controlled modes of inquiry, or irrelevant to understanding youth mental health. By contrast, CEnR methods can provide real-world impact, contextualized clinical solutions, and sustainable outcomes. A key advantage of CEnR strategies is their flexibility-they fall across a continuum that centers community engagement as a core principle, and thus can be infused in a variety of research efforts, even those that center experimental control (e.g. randomized controlled trials). This paper provides a brief overview of this continuum of strategies and its application to youth-focused clinical science. We then discuss future directions of CEnR in clinical science with youth, as well as structural changes needed to advance this work. The goals of this paper are to help demystify CEnR and encourage clinical scientists to consider adopting methods that better consider context and intentionally engage the communities that our work seeks to serve.

Experiences and Lessons Learned From the RADx-UP Consortium Community Engagement Projects

In this study, we used emerging community engagement frameworks to describe the structure and outcomes of a large-scale, community-engaged, research-to-practice initiative, RADx-UP. Qualitative methods were used to analyze survey and meeting data from 2022 for RADx-UP projects. Most projects had diverse partners, achieved moderate levels of community engagement, and experienced positive outcomes. Challenges related to engagement readiness and partnership functioning. These findings demonstrate that community engagement is measurable and valuable. However, additional support is needed to achieve the highest engagement. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(S5):S405-S409. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307615).

Determining the destination: a co-designed chronic advanced cancer rehabilitation conceptual framework for engagement of individuals with lived experience in rehabilitation research

BACKGROUND

Individuals living with chronic advanced cancer (CAC) often face distinct physical, functional, and cognitive issues. Their rehabilitation needs are not yet routinely met, warranting further CAC-specific rehabilitation-based research. Given the complexity of functional and symptom presentations, engagement of individuals living with CAC as partners in the research process is encouraged to better understand the lived perspective. Formal engagement requires both structured approaches and iterative processes. The aim was to co-design a conceptual framework to develop and integrate engagement strategies into rehabilitation research focused on CAC populations.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary team of authors, including two individuals with lived experience, conducted an implementation-focused descriptive study to inform future research design, including: interviews and follow-up, review of current models and approaches, and development of a co-designed conceptual framework for engaging individuals with lived experience into CAC-specific rehabilitation research.

RESULTS

Emergent themes include shared understanding, transparent appreciation, iterative processes and unique partnership needs. A definition, guiding principles and tools for engagement were identified. In consultation with individuals with lived experience, and application of the emergent themes in context, a conceptual framework to guide the engagement process was developed.

CONCLUSION

A novel conceptual framework for engaging individuals with lived experience with CAC as partners in rehabilitation research is proposed to facilitate implementation-focused team-based approaches for this population.

Exploring patient and caregiver perceptions of the meaning of the patient partner role: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The re-conceptualization of patients' and caregivers' roles in research from study participants to co-researchers ("patient partners") has led to growing pains within and outside the research community, such as how to effectively engage patients in research and as part of interdisciplinary teams. To support the growth of more successful research partnerships by developing a shared understanding of how patient partners conceptualize and contribute to their role, this study aimed to explore patient partners' motivations for engagement and understanding of their role.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants (n = 13) of an online survey of activities and impacts of patient engagement in Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research projects. Eligibility criteria included being a patient partner that indicated interest in interview participation upon survey completion, the ability to read/write in English and provide informed consent. Data were analyzed thematically using an inductive, codebook thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Illuminating the lived/living patient and caregiver experience was central to how most patient partners conceptualized the role in terms of its definition, purpose, value, and responsibilities. Participants also identified four additional categories of motivations for becoming a patient partner and contributions that patient partners make to research that build upon and are in addition to sharing their lived/living experiences. Lastly, participants highlighted important connotations of the term patient partner, including temporal and context-specific considerations for the term "patient" and what "partner" may imply about the nature of the research relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

At the onset of partnership, academic researchers and patient partners must create the space necessary to discuss and understand each other's underlying motivations for partnering and their perspectives on the purpose, value, and responsibilities of the patient partner role. These early conversations should help unearth what research partners hope to get out of and feel that they are able to contribute to engaging, and in such contribute to the development of reciprocal relationships that work towards shared and valued goals. Trial registration Not applicable.

State of pediatric liver transplantation in the United States and achieving zero wait list mortality with ideal outcomes: A statement from the Starzl Network for Excellence in Pediatric Transplant Surgeon's Working Group

BACKGROUND

Liver transplant is a life-saving therapy that can restore quality life for several pediatric liver diseases. However, it is not available to all children who need one. Expertise in medical and surgical management is heterogeneous, and allocation policies are not optimally serving children. Technical variant grafts from both living and deceased donors are underutilized.

METHODS

Several national efforts in pediatric liver transplant to improve access to and outcomes from liver transplant for children have been instituted and include adjustments to allocation policies, UNOS-sponsored collaborative improvement projects, and the emergence of national learning networks to study ongoing challenges in the field the Surgical Working group of the Starzl Network for Excellence in Pediatric Transplantation (SNEPT) discusses key issues and proposes potential solutions to eliminate the persistent wait list mortality that pediatric patients face.

RESULTS

A discussion of the factors impacting pediatric patients' access to liver transplant is undertaken, along with a proposal of several measures to ensure equitable access to life-saving liver transplant.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric liver transplant wait list mortality can and should be eliminated. Several measures, including collaborative efforts among centers, could be leveraged to acheive this goal.

Methodological guidance for incorporating equity when informing rapid-policy and guideline development

OBJECTIVES

We provide guidance for considering equity in rapid reviews through examples of published COVID-19 rapid reviews.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This guidance was developed based on a series of methodological meetings, review of internationally renowned guidance such as the Cochrane Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-Equity) guideline. We identified Exemplar rapid reviews by searching COVID-19 databases and requesting examples from our team.

RESULTS

We proposed the following key steps: 1. involve relevant stakeholders with lived experience in the conduct and design of the review; 2. reflect on equity, inclusion and privilege in team values and composition; 3. develop research question to assess health inequities; 4. conduct searches in relevant disciplinary databases; 5. collect data and critically appraise recruitment, retention and attrition for populations experiencing inequities; 6. analyse evidence on equity; 7. evaluate the applicability of findings to populations experiencing inequities; and 8. adhere to reporting guidelines for communicating review findings. We illustrated these methods through rapid review examples.

CONCLUSION

Implementing this guidance could contribute to improving equity considerations in rapid reviews produced in public health emergencies, and help policymakers better understand the distributional impact of diseases on the population.

PROTOCOL: Barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development: A qualitative evidence synthesis

Background

There is a need for the development of comprehensive, global, evidence-based guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development. Stakeholders are any individual or group who is responsible for or affected by health- and healthcare-related decisions. This includes patients, the public, providers of health care and policymakers for example. As part of the guidance development process, Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium set out to conduct four concurrent systematic reviews to summarise the evidence on: (1) existing guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development, (2) barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development, (3) managing conflicts of interest in stakeholder engagement in guideline development and (4) measuring the impact of stakeholder engagement in guideline development. This protocol addresses the second systematic review in the series.

Objectives

The objective of this review is to identify and synthesise the existing evidence on barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development. We will address this objective through two research questions: (1) What are the barriers to multi-stakeholder engagement in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN-McMaster checklist? (2) What are the facilitators to multi-stakeholder engagement in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN-McMaster checklist?

Search Methods

A comprehensive search strategy will be developed and peer-reviewed in consultation with a medical librarian. We will search the following databases: MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, PsycInfo, Scopus, and Sociological Abstracts. To identify grey literature, we will search the websites of agencies who actively engage stakeholder groups such as the AHRQ, Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR), INVOLVE, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the PCORI. We will also search the websites of guideline-producing agencies, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, Australia's National Health Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the WHO. We will invite members of the team to suggest grey literature sources and we plan to broaden the search by soliciting suggestions via social media, such as Twitter.

Selection Criteria

We will include empirical qualitative and mixed-method primary research studies which qualitatively report on the barriers or facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development. The population of interest is stakeholders in health guideline development. Building on previous work, we have identified 13 types of stakeholders whose input can enhance the relevance and uptake of guidelines: Patients, caregivers and patient advocates; Public; Providers of health care; Payers of health services; Payers of research; Policy makers; Program managers; Product makers; Purchasers; Principal investigators and their research teams; and Peer-review editors/publishers. Eligible studies must describe stakeholder engagement at any of the following steps of the GIN-McMaster Checklist for Guideline Development.

Data Collection and Analysis

All identified citations from electronic databases will be imported into Covidence software for screening and selection. Documents identified through our grey literature search will be managed and screened using an Excel spreadsheet. A two-part study selection process will be used for all identified citations: (1) a title and abstract review and (2) full-text review. At each stage, teams of two review authors will independently assess all potential studies in duplicate using a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data will be extracted by two review authors independently and in duplicate according to a standardised data extraction form.

Main Results

The results of this review will be used to inform the development of guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. This guidance will be official GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group guidance. The GRADE system is internationally recognised as a standard for guideline development. The findings of this review will assist organisations who develop healthcare, public health and health policy guidelines, such as the World Health Organization, to involve multiple stakeholders in the guideline development process to ensure the development of relevant, high quality and transparent guidelines.

PROTOCOL: Guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development: A systematic review

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: to identify, describe, and summarize existing guidance and methods for multistakeholder engagement throughout the health guideline development process.

PROTOCOL: Conflict of interest issues when engaging stakeholders in health and healthcare guideline development: a systematic review

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The overall objective of this study is to gather and summarize the existing literature on conflict of interest issues when engaging stakeholders in guideline development.

The Precision Interventions for Severe and/or Exacerbation-Prone (PrecISE) Asthma Network: An overview of Network organization, procedures, and interventions

Asthma is a heterogeneous disease, with multiple underlying inflammatory pathways and structural airway abnormalities that impact disease persistence and severity. Recent progress has been made in developing targeted asthma therapeutics, especially for subjects with eosinophilic asthma. However, there is an unmet need for new approaches to treat patients with severe and exacerbation-prone asthma, who contribute disproportionately to disease burden. Extensive deep phenotyping has revealed the heterogeneous nature of severe asthma and identified distinct disease subtypes. A current challenge in the field is to translate new and emerging knowledge about different pathobiologic mechanisms in asthma into patient-specific therapies, with the ultimate goal of modifying the natural history of disease. Here, we describe the Precision Interventions for Severe and/or Exacerbation-Prone Asthma (PrecISE) Network, a groundbreaking collaborative effort of asthma researchers and biostatisticians from around the United States. The PrecISE Network was designed to conduct phase II/proof-of-concept clinical trials of precision interventions in the population with severe asthma, and is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Using an innovative adaptive platform trial design, the PrecISE Network will evaluate up to 6 interventions simultaneously in biomarker-defined subgroups of subjects. We review the development and organizational structure of the PrecISE Network, and choice of interventions being studied. We hope that the PrecISE Network will enhance our understanding of asthma subtypes and accelerate the development of therapeutics for severe asthma.

Care of Sexual and Gender Minorities in the Emergency Department: A Scoping Review

STUDY OBJECTIVE

This scoping review was conducted to collate and summarize the published research literature addressing sexual and gender minority care in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

Using PRISMA-ScR criteria, an electronic search was conducted of CINAHL, Embase, Ovid Medline, and Web of Science for all studies that were published after 1995 involving sexual and gender minorities, throughout all life stages, presenting to an ED. We excluded non-US and Canadian studies and editorials. Titles and abstracts were screened, and full-text review was performed independently with 4 reviewers. Abstraction focused on study design, demographics, and outcomes, and the resulting data were analyzed using an ad hoc iterative thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We found 972 unique articles and excluded 743 after title and abstract screening. The remaining 229 articles underwent full-text review, and 160 articles were included. Themes identified were HIV in sexual and gender minorities (n=61), population health (n=46), provider training (n=29), ED avoidance or barriers (n=23), ED use (n=21), and sexual orientation/gender identity information collection (n=9).

CONCLUSION

The current literature encompassing ED sexual and gender minority care cluster into 6 themes. There are considerable gaps to be addressed in optimizing culturally competent and equitable care in the ED for this population. Future research to address these gaps should include substantial patient stakeholder engagement in all aspects of the research process to ensure patient-focused outcomes congruent with sexual and gender minority values and preferences.

Partnering to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening: Perspectives of Community Advisory Board Members

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) defines engagement in research as the meaningful involvement of patients, caregivers, clinicians, insurers, and others throughout the entire research process-from planning to conducting the study to disseminating study results. The purposes of this paper are to (a) describe methods used to engage community members across the various phases of a PCORI-funded comparative effectiveness trial to increase colorectal cancer screening; and (b) report results of qualitative and quantitative evaluations of community advisory board members' experiences on this project. Decisions to join and stay engaged with the study included feeling valued and appreciated, being compensated, the opportunity to contribute to research based on their skills and expertise, and being committed to colon cancer prevention efforts. Challenges identified by advisory board members included the significant time commitment, transportation, and meeting location. Lessons learned and guidance for researchers committed to patient and community engagement are described.

Strategies of community engagement in research: definitions and classifications

Engagement activities are defined along a continuum that analyzes and represents nonacademic stakeholder activities and interactions with academic researchers. Proposed continua begin with none to limited stakeholder inclusion and input into research and continue with descriptions of increasing presence, input, and participation in decision-making. Despite some agreement in the literature, development of consistent terminology and definitions has been recommended to promote the common understanding of strategies in engaged research. This paper sought to develop and understand classifications and definitions of community-engaged research that can serve as the foundation of a measure of engaged research that permits comparisons among engagement strategies and the outcomes that they produce in health- and healthcare-related research studies. Data on academic and stakeholder perceptions and understandings of classifications and definitions were obtained using Delphi process (N = 19) via online and face-to-face survey and cognitive response interviews (N = 16). Participants suggested the need for more nuanced understanding of engagement along portions of the continuum, with active involvement and decision-making as engagement progressed. Cognitive interview responses suggested that outreach and education is a more advanced level of engagement than previously discussed in the literature and viewed consultation negatively because it required work without guaranteeing community benefit. It is possible to define a continuum of patient- and community-engaged research that is understood and accepted by both academic researchers and community members. However, future research should revisit the understanding and depiction of the strategies that are to be used in measure development.

Engaging multi-stakeholder perspectives to identify dementia care research priorities

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to partner with stakeholders to identify gaps in care for persons living with dementia and their family caregivers and from this list, identify priorities for dementia care research.

METHODS

Using a community-engaged research approach, a Stakeholder Advisory Council (SAC) consisting of diverse membership including persons living with dementia and family caregivers was convened. Through our work with the SAC, along with input from the wider network through a symposium, webinars, and an online learning community, gaps in dementia care and a list of topics for dementia care research was generated. This list was reduced to 46 topics for dementia care research and sent to stakeholders (persons living with dementia, family caregivers, and health/social care professionals in dementia care) to be prioritized by rating each of the 46 topics as "Not so important," "Important," or "Very important." Priorities for dementia care were summarized by frequencies and proportions.

RESULTS

A total of 186 participants completed the survey from August through October 2020, including 23 (12.4%) persons living with dementia, 101 (54.3%) family caregivers, and 62 (33.3%) health/social care professionals. Consistent across stakeholder groups was the focus on research on how best to support families following a diagnosis of dementia. Among persons living with dementia, research focused on support for continuing to live in their own homes was ranked as the highest priority, rated by 91.3% as "Very Important". High priority research areas for family caregivers included interventions to slow cognitive decline (76.3%) as well as non-pharmacological approaches to manage behavioral symptoms (74.7%). The highest priority research topics for health/social care professionals were focused on the diagnosis including benefits of an early diagnosis (71.4%), how best to deliver the diagnosis (70.9%), and supports needed following a diagnosis (78.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

This project draws on the strengths of its multi-stakeholder perspective to support patient-centered outcomes research. Findings are intended to inform those who conduct research and those who fund research about which research topics stakeholders believe are most important and thus have greatest potential to improve the quality of life among people living with dementia and their families.

Engaging Stakeholders in the Design and Conduct of Embedded Pragmatic Clinical Trials for Alzheimer's Disease and Alzheimer's Disease-Related Dementias

Embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) of nondrug interventions for Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease-related dementias (AD/ADRD) are conducted in real-world clinical settings and designed to generate an evidence base to inform clinical and policy decisions about care for this vulnerable population. The ePCTs exist within a complex ecosystem of relationships between researchers, payors, policymakers, healthcare systems, direct care staff, advocacy groups, families, caregivers, and people living with dementia (PLWD). Because the rapid increase of the number of Americans with AD/ADRD outpaces curative treatments, there is an urgent need to mobilize the power of these relationships to improve dementia care and address a mounting public health crisis. Stakeholder engagement in ePCTs is essential to generate research questions, establish the relevancy of trials to the intended end users, and understand the factors that influence dissemination and implementation in real-world clinical settings. The process of including stakeholders in ePCTs for dementia is similar to stakeholder engagement in ePCTs for other diseases and conditions; however, the unique nature of embedded research, prevalence of caregiver and provider burden, and the progressive worsening of cognitive impairment in PLWD must be approached with additional strategies. This article presents key considerations of stakeholder engagement for ePCTs in AD/ADRD and main activities of the stakeholder engagement team in the National Institute on Aging IMPACT Collaboratory to move the field forward. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:S62-S67, 2020.