1
|
Meyerson BE, Russell DM, Mahoney A, Garnett I, Samorano S. SI-CBPAR: Towards structural indicators of community-based participatory action research. Drug Alcohol Rev 2024; 43:1049-1061. [PMID: 37872867 DOI: 10.1111/dar.13764] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/22/2022] [Revised: 04/06/2023] [Accepted: 10/01/2023] [Indexed: 10/25/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Structural aspects of community-engaged research are not well measured yet have critical implications for community research empowerment. This is particularly so with people who use drugs. We introduce the Structural Indicators of Community-Based Participatory Action Research (SI-CBPAR) to measure structural indicators of community-research entity relationships. METHODS A three-phased process of iterative development, feasibility and applicability assessment was used to examine the instrument with community-engaged studies as a first stage of instrument development. The development team included people with university, non-government organisation and lived/ing drug use experience. Four studies on the health of people who use drugs were reviewed for indicator evidence followed by iterative discussion about construct and item discrepancies. Indicators were measured for the degree to which they were observed using a three-point scale. RESULTS All but two constructs were confirmed for meaning. Constructs of 'community' and 'coalition' required revision and explanation. The need for further exploration of power differentials between community and community-based organisations was identified. Indicator evidence was found for all six categories across studies. The instrument was deemed applicable and easy to use. It was observed that categories could apply to studies with various degrees of community engagement and to other research focal areas. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS SI-CBPAR applicability testing and initial category confirmation indicate its potential utility for community research collaboratives. The next phase of development involves cognitive interviewing with researchers from across community engaged research orientations, and with communities engaged in research beyond drug user health.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Beth E Meyerson
- Harm Reduction Research Lab, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA
- Family and Community Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA
- Comprehensive Pain and Addiction Center, University of Arizona Health Sciences, Tucson, USA
| | - Danielle M Russell
- Harm Reduction Research Lab, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA
- Justice Studies, Tempe, USA
- Drug Policy Research and Advocacy Board, Harm Reduction Research Lab, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA
| | - Arlene Mahoney
- Harm Reduction Research Lab, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA
- Drug Policy Research and Advocacy Board, Harm Reduction Research Lab, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA
- Southwest Recovery Alliance, Phoenix, USA
| | - Irene Garnett
- Drug Policy Research and Advocacy Board, Harm Reduction Research Lab, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA
| | - Savannah Samorano
- Drug Policy Research and Advocacy Board, Harm Reduction Research Lab, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Yamaguchi S, Zerbo A, Cardoso R, Elsabbagh M, Gitterman A, Glegg S, Gonzalez M, Putterman C, Weiss JA, Shikako K. Realist process evaluation of the knowledge translation programme of a patient-oriented research network. J Eval Clin Pract 2024. [PMID: 38943509 DOI: 10.1111/jep.14056] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/18/2024] [Accepted: 06/02/2024] [Indexed: 07/01/2024]
Abstract
RATIONALE The Knowledge Translation (KT) Programme of a pan-Canadian strategic patient-oriented research network focused on brain-based developmental disabilities aimed to mobilize knowledge relevant to the network members. The programme also promotes and studies integrated Knowledge Translation (iKT) approaches involving different interested parties, such as researchers, patient-partners and decision-makers, in all parts of the knowledge creation process. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES The objective of this study is to advance research programme evaluation methods through a realist evaluation of the process of implementing iKT activities. METHODS Realist process evaluation included: (1) development of initial programme theories (using the partnership synergy theory); (2) data collection and analysis; (3) synthesis and refinement of theories through engagement with literature; and (4) presentation of findings in context-mechanism-outcome (C-M-O) configurations. A range of project documentation records were reviewed for analysis, and three co-leads, a programme coordinator, and a senior research associate were consulted to contextualize the implementation process of relevant KT activities. RESULTS Based on the developed C-M-O configurations, we identified five key mechanisms of generating synergy in the iKT processes: (1) Visible shared leadership that embodies what iKT looks like; (2) Researchers' readiness for iKT; (3) Adaptation and flexible allocation of resources to emerging needs; (4) Power sharing to create practical and creative knowledge; and (5) Collective voice for potential transformative impacts at the policy level. CONCLUSIONS The current realist evaluation demonstrated how partnerships between researchers, patient-partners and other interested parties can synergistically generate new ways of thinking among all interested parties, actionable strategies to integrate users in research, and solutions to disseminate knowledge. In particular, we identified a pivotal role for patient-partners to act as equal decision-maker helps building and maintaining partnerships and consolidating KT strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sakiko Yamaguchi
- School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- CHILD-BRIGHT Network, McGill University Health Center Research Institute, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Alix Zerbo
- CHILD-BRIGHT Network, McGill University Health Center Research Institute, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Roberta Cardoso
- CHILD-BRIGHT Network, McGill University Health Center Research Institute, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Mayada Elsabbagh
- CHILD-BRIGHT Network, McGill University Health Center Research Institute, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Montreal Neurological Institute, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Aryeh Gitterman
- CHILD-BRIGHT Network, McGill University Health Center Research Institute, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- School of Child and Youth Care, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Stephanie Glegg
- CHILD-BRIGHT Network, McGill University Health Center Research Institute, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Department of Occupational Science & Occupational Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- BC Children's Hospital Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Miriam Gonzalez
- CHILD-BRIGHT Network, McGill University Health Center Research Institute, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- College of Nursing, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - Connie Putterman
- CHILD-BRIGHT Network, McGill University Health Center Research Institute, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jonathan A Weiss
- Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Keiko Shikako
- School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- CHILD-BRIGHT Network, McGill University Health Center Research Institute, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Haroutounian S, Holzer KJ, Kerns RD, Veasley C, Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Carman KL, Chambers CT, Cowan P, Edwards RR, Eisenach JC, Farrar JT, Ferguson M, Forsythe LP, Freeman R, Gewandter JS, Gilron I, Goertz C, Grol-Prokopczyk H, Iyengar S, Jordan I, Kamp C, Kleykamp BA, Knowles RL, Langford DJ, Mackey S, Malamut R, Markman J, Martin KR, McNicol E, Patel KV, Rice AS, Rowbotham M, Sandbrink F, Simon LS, Steiner DJ, Vollert J. Patient engagement in designing, conducting, and disseminating clinical pain research: IMMPACT recommended considerations. Pain 2024; 165:1013-1028. [PMID: 38198239 PMCID: PMC11017749 DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003121] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2023] [Revised: 08/31/2023] [Accepted: 09/08/2023] [Indexed: 01/12/2024]
Abstract
ABSTRACT In the traditional clinical research model, patients are typically involved only as participants. However, there has been a shift in recent years highlighting the value and contributions that patients bring as members of the research team, across the clinical research lifecycle. It is becoming increasingly evident that to develop research that is both meaningful to people who have the targeted condition and is feasible, there are important benefits of involving patients in the planning, conduct, and dissemination of research from its earliest stages. In fact, research funders and regulatory agencies are now explicitly encouraging, and sometimes requiring, that patients are engaged as partners in research. Although this approach has become commonplace in some fields of clinical research, it remains the exception in clinical pain research. As such, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials convened a meeting with patient partners and international representatives from academia, patient advocacy groups, government regulatory agencies, research funding organizations, academic journals, and the biopharmaceutical industry to develop consensus recommendations for advancing patient engagement in all stages of clinical pain research in an effective and purposeful manner. This article summarizes the results of this meeting and offers considerations for meaningful and authentic engagement of patient partners in clinical pain research, including recommendations for representation, timing, continuous engagement, measurement, reporting, and research dissemination.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simon Haroutounian
- Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States
| | - Katherine J. Holzer
- Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States
| | - Robert D. Kerns
- Departments of Psychiatry, Neurology, and Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States
| | - Christin Veasley
- Chronic Pain Research Alliance, North Kingstown, RI, United States
| | - Robert H. Dworkin
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, United States
| | - Dennis C. Turk
- Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Kristin L. Carman
- Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), Washington, DC, United States
| | - Christine T. Chambers
- Departments of Psychology & Neuroscience and Pediatrics, Dalhousie University, and Centre for Pediatric Pain Research, IWK Health Centre, Halifax, NS, Canada
| | - Penney Cowan
- American Chronic Pain Association, Rocklin, CA, United States
| | - Robert R. Edwards
- Department of Anesthesiology, Harvard Medical School, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States
| | - James C. Eisenach
- Departments of Anesthesiology, Physiology and Pharmacology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston Salem, NC, United States
| | - John T. Farrar
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - McKenzie Ferguson
- Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, School of Pharmacy, Edwardsville, IL, United States
| | - Laura P. Forsythe
- Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), Washington, DC, United States
| | - Roy Freeman
- Department of Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Jennifer S. Gewandter
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, United States
| | - Ian Gilron
- Departments of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine and Biomedical & Molecular Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada
| | - Christine Goertz
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, United States
| | | | - Smriti Iyengar
- Division of Translational Research, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, MD, United States
| | - Isabel Jordan
- Departments of Psychology & Neuroscience and Pediatrics, Dalhousie University, and Centre for Pediatric Pain Research, IWK Health Centre, Halifax, NS, Canada
| | - Cornelia Kamp
- Center for Health and Technology/Clinical Materials Services Unit, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, United States
| | - Bethea A. Kleykamp
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | - Rachel L. Knowles
- Medical Research Council (part of UK Research and Innovation), London, United Kingdom
| | - Dale J. Langford
- Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care & Pain Management, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, United States
| | - Sean Mackey
- Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative, and Pain Medicine, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA, United States
| | | | - John Markman
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, United States
| | - Kathryn R. Martin
- Aberdeen Centre for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Health, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom
| | - Ewan McNicol
- Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Kushang V. Patel
- Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Andrew S.C. Rice
- Pain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Michael Rowbotham
- Departments of Anesthesia and Neurology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States
| | - Friedhelm Sandbrink
- National Pain Management, Opioid Safety, and Prescription Drug Monitoring Program, Specialty Care Program Office, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC, United States
| | | | - Deborah J. Steiner
- Global Pain, Pain & Neurodegeneration, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, United States
| | - Jan Vollert
- Pain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
- Division of Neurological Pain Research and Therapy, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Germany
- Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Muenster, Münster, Germany
- Department of Neurophysiology, Mannheim Center for Translational Neuroscience MCTN, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Ruprecht Karls University, Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Rioles N, March C, Muñoz CE, Ilkowitz J, Ohmer A, Wolf RM. Stakeholder Engagement in Type 1 Diabetes Research, Quality Improvement, and Clinical Care. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 2024; 53:165-182. [PMID: 38272594 DOI: 10.1016/j.ecl.2023.09.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/27/2024]
Abstract
The integration of stakeholder engagement (SE) in research, quality improvement (QI), and clinical care has gained significant traction. Type 1 diabetes is a chronic disease that requires complex daily management and care from a multidisciplinary team across the lifespan. Inclusion of key stakeholder voices, including patients, caregivers, health care providers and community advocates, in the research process and implementation of clinical care is critical to ensure representation of perspectives that match the values and goals of the patient population. This review describes the current framework for SE and its application to research, QI, and clinical care across the lifespan.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Christine March
- Division of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes, University of Pittsburgh, UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Cynthia E Muñoz
- Department of Pediatrics, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Jeniece Ilkowitz
- Pediatric Diabetes Center, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA
| | - Amy Ohmer
- International Children's Advisory Network, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Risa M Wolf
- Department of Pediatrics, Division of Endocrinology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Mrklas KJ, Boyd JM, Shergill S, Merali S, Khan M, Moser C, Nowell L, Goertzen A, Swain L, Pfadenhauer LM, Sibley KM, Vis-Dunbar M, Hill MD, Raffin-Bouchal S, Tonelli M, Graham ID. A scoping review of the globally available tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts. Health Res Policy Syst 2023; 21:139. [PMID: 38129871 PMCID: PMC10740226 DOI: 10.1186/s12961-023-00958-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/20/2022] [Accepted: 01/03/2023] [Indexed: 12/23/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Health research partnership approaches have grown in popularity over the past decade, but the systematic evaluation of their outcomes and impacts has not kept equal pace. Identifying partnership assessment tools and key partnership characteristics is needed to advance partnerships, partnership measurement, and the assessment of their outcomes and impacts through systematic study. OBJECTIVE To locate and identify globally available tools for assessing the outcomes and impacts of health research partnerships. METHODS We searched four electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL + , PsychINFO) with an a priori strategy from inception to June 2021, without limits. We screened studies independently and in duplicate, keeping only those involving a health research partnership and the development, use and/or assessment of tools to evaluate partnership outcomes and impacts. Reviewer disagreements were resolved by consensus. Study, tool and partnership characteristics, and emerging research questions, gaps and key recommendations were synthesized using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. RESULTS We screened 36 027 de-duplicated citations, reviewed 2784 papers in full text, and kept 166 studies and three companion reports. Most studies originated in North America and were published in English after 2015. Most of the 205 tools we identified were questionnaires and surveys targeting researchers, patients and public/community members. While tools were comprehensive and usable, most were designed for single use and lacked validity or reliability evidence. Challenges associated with the interchange and definition of terms (i.e., outcomes, impacts, tool type) were common and may obscure partnership measurement and comparison. Very few of the tools identified in this study overlapped with tools identified by other, similar reviews. Partnership tool development, refinement and evaluation, including tool measurement and optimization, are key areas for future tools-related research. CONCLUSION This large scoping review identified numerous, single-use tools that require further development and testing to improve their psychometric and scientific qualities. The review also confirmed that the health partnership research domain and its measurement tools are still nascent and actively evolving. Dedicated efforts and resources are required to better understand health research partnerships, partnership optimization and partnership measurement and evaluation using valid, reliable and practical tools that meet partners' needs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kelly J Mrklas
- Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3D10-3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada.
- Strategic Clinical Networks™, Provincial Clinical Excellence, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada.
| | - Jamie M Boyd
- Knowledge Translation Program, St Michael's Hospital, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Sumair Shergill
- Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Sera Merali
- Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Masood Khan
- Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
| | - Cheryl Moser
- Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
| | - Lorelli Nowell
- Faculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Amelia Goertzen
- Faculty of Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
| | - Liam Swain
- Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3D10-3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada
| | - Lisa M Pfadenhauer
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, and Epidemiology-IBE, Ludwig-Maximilians Universität Munich, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| | - Kathryn M Sibley
- Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
- George & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
| | | | - Michael D Hill
- Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3D10-3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada
- Departments of Clinical Neurosciences, Medicine and Radiology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
- Hotchkiss Brain Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | | | - Marcello Tonelli
- Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
- Office of the Vice-President (Research), University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Ian D Graham
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
- Schools of Epidemiology and Public Health and Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Gordon B, Van De Griend KM, Scharp VL, Ellis H, Nies MA. Community Engagement in Research: An Updated Systematic Review of Quantitative Engagement Measurement Scales for Health Studies. Eval Health Prof 2023; 46:291-308. [PMID: 37750605 DOI: 10.1177/01632787231203346] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/27/2023]
Abstract
Though the interest in community engagement in research (CEnR) protocols has increased, studies reporting on the findings of tested CEnR engagement measurement scales for health studies are sparse. A systematic review was conducted from January 1 to March 1, 2023, to identify validated, quantitative CEnR engagement measurement tools for health studies. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology was employed. The rigor of scale development, testing, and implementation was explored, and a `best practices evaluation conducted. Themes on the readiness of scales for implementation in health research studies were narratively compiled. Nineteen studies met the search inclusion criteria-reporting on the development, testing, and implementation of seven CEnR engagement measurement scales for health studies. Scale implementation studies precipitated only two of the studies. None of the scales followed the rigorous process dictated in best practices; however, at this time, three scales have gone through the most robust testing processes. Advancement of the science of engagement measurement requires consensus on terminology, application of best practices for scale development and testing protocols, and consistency of reporting findings.
Collapse
|
7
|
Cazzolli R, Sluiter A, Guha C, Huuskes B, Wong G, Craig JC, Jaure A, Scholes-Robertson N. Partnering with patients and caregivers to enrich research and care in kidney disease: values and strategies. Clin Kidney J 2023; 16:i57-i68. [PMID: 37711636 PMCID: PMC10497378 DOI: 10.1093/ckj/sfad063] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2022] [Indexed: 09/16/2023] Open
Abstract
Patient and caregiver involvement broadens the scope of new knowledge generated from research and can enhance the relevance, quality and impact of research on clinical practice and health outcomes. Incorporating the perspectives of people with lived experience of chronic kidney disease (CKD) affords new insights into the design of interventions, study methodology, data analysis and implementation and has value for patients, healthcare professionals and researchers alike. However, patient involvement in CKD research has been limited and data on which to inform best practice is scarce. A number of frameworks have been developed for involving patients and caregivers in research in CKD and in health research more broadly. These frameworks provide an overall conceptual structure to guide the planning and implementation of research partnerships and describe values that are essential and strategies considered best practice when working with diverse stakeholder groups. This article aims to provide a summary of the strategies most widely used to support multistakeholder partnerships, the different ways patients and caregivers can be involved in research and the methods used to amalgamate diverse and at times conflicting points of view.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rosanna Cazzolli
- Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, NSW, Australia
| | - Amanda Sluiter
- Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, NSW, Australia
| | - Chandana Guha
- Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, NSW, Australia
| | - Brooke Huuskes
- Centre for Cardiovascular Biology and Disease Research, School of Agriculture, Biomedicine and Environment, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Germaine Wong
- Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, NSW, Australia
| | - Jonathan C Craig
- Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, NSW, Australia
- College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia
| | - Allison Jaure
- Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, NSW, Australia
| | - Nicole Scholes-Robertson
- Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Rabin BA, Cain KL, Salgin L, Watson PL, Oswald W, Kaiser BN, Ayers L, Yi C, Alegre A, Ni J, Reyes A, Yu KE, Broyles SL, Tukey R, Laurent LC, Stadnick NA. Using ethnographic approaches to document, evaluate, and facilitate virtual community-engaged implementation research. BMC Public Health 2023; 23:409. [PMID: 36855118 PMCID: PMC9974043 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-023-15299-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/26/2022] [Accepted: 02/20/2023] [Indexed: 03/02/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Community Advisory Boards (CABs) have been frequently used to engage diverse partners to inform research projects. Yet, evaluating the quality of engagement has not been routine. We describe a multi-method ethnographic approach documenting and assessing partner engagement in two "virtual" CABs, for which we conducted all meetings remotely. METHODS Two research projects for increasing equitable COVID-19 testing, vaccination, and clinical trial participation for underserved communities involved remote CAB meetings. Thirty-three partners representing 17 community groups participated in 15 sessions across the two CABs facilitated by a social change organization. We developed ethnographic documentation forms to assess multiple aspects of CAB member engagement (e.g., time spent speaking, modality used, types of interactions). Documenters were trained to observe CAB sub-groups via virtual sessions. Debriefing with the documentation team after CAB meetings supported quality assurance and process refinement. CAB members completed a brief validated survey after each meeting to assess the quality and frequency of engagement. Content and rapid thematic analysis were used to analyze documentation data. Quantitative data were summarized as frequencies and means. Qualitative and quantitative findings were triangulated. RESULTS A total of 4,540 interactions were identified across 15 meetings. The most frequent interaction was providing information (44%), followed by responding (37-38%). The quality and frequency of stakeholder engagement were rated favorably (average 4.7 of 5). Most CAB members (96%) reported good/excellent engagement. Specific comments included appreciation for the diversity of perspectives represented by the CAB members and suggestions for improved live interpretation. Debriefing sessions led to several methodological refinements for the documentation process and forms. CONCLUSION We highlight key strategies for documenting and assessing community engagement. Our methods allowed for rich ethnographic data collection that refined our work with community partners. We recommend ongoing trainings, including debriefing sessions and routinely reviewed assessment of data to strengthen meaningful community engagement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Borsika A Rabin
- Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, United States of America.
- UC San Diego Altman Clinical and Translational Research Institute Dissemination and Implementation Science Center, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, United States of America.
| | - Kelli L Cain
- Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, United States of America
| | - Linda Salgin
- San Ysidro Health, San Diego, CA, United States of America
- Joint Doctoral Program in Public Health, San Diego State University, University of California San Diego, San Diego, United States of America
| | - Paul L Watson
- The Global Action Research Center, San Diego, CA, United States of America
| | - William Oswald
- The Global Action Research Center, San Diego, CA, United States of America
| | - Bonnie N Kaiser
- UC San Diego Altman Clinical and Translational Research Institute Dissemination and Implementation Science Center, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, United States of America
- Department of Anthropology and Global Health Program, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, United States of America
| | - Lawrence Ayers
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, United States of America
| | - Crystal Yi
- Department of Urban Studies and Planning, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, United States of America
| | - Alexander Alegre
- Department of Urban Studies and Planning, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, United States of America
| | - Jessica Ni
- UC San Diego Altman Clinical and Translational Research Institute Dissemination and Implementation Science Center, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, United States of America
| | - Allyn Reyes
- Department of Urban Studies and Planning, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, United States of America
| | - Kasey E Yu
- UC San Diego Altman Clinical and Translational Research Institute Dissemination and Implementation Science Center, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, United States of America
| | - Shelia L Broyles
- Department of Pediatrics, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, United States of America
- UC San Diego Altman Clinical and Translational Research Institute Community Research Partnerships, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, United States of America
| | - Robert Tukey
- Laboratory of Environmental Toxicology, Department of Pharmacology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, United States of America
| | - Louise C Laurent
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, United States of America
| | - Nicole A Stadnick
- UC San Diego Altman Clinical and Translational Research Institute Dissemination and Implementation Science Center, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, United States of America
- Department of Psychiatry, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, United States of America
- Child and Adolescent Services Research Center, San Diego, CA, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Mrklas KJ, Boyd JM, Shergill S, Merali S, Khan M, Nowell L, Goertzen A, Pfadenhauer LM, Paul K, Sibley KM, Swain L, Vis-Dunbar M, Hill MD, Raffin-Bouchal S, Tonelli M, Graham ID. Tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts: a systematic review. Health Res Policy Syst 2023; 21:3. [PMID: 36604697 PMCID: PMC9817421 DOI: 10.1186/s12961-022-00937-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2022] [Accepted: 11/08/2022] [Indexed: 01/07/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To identify and assess the globally available valid, reliable and acceptable tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts. METHODS We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus and PsycINFO from origin to 2 June 2021, without limits, using an a priori strategy and registered protocol. We screened citations independently and in duplicate, resolving discrepancies by consensus and retaining studies involving health research partnerships, the development, use and/or assessment of tools to evaluate partnership outcomes and impacts, and reporting empirical psychometric evidence. Study, tool, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics were abstracted using a hybrid approach, then synthesized using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Study quality was assessed using the quality of survey studies in psychology (Q-SSP) checklist. RESULTS From 56 123 total citations, we screened 36 027 citations, assessed 2784 full-text papers, abstracted data from 48 studies and one companion report, and identified 58 tools. Most tools comprised surveys, questionnaires and scales. Studies used cross-sectional or mixed-method/embedded survey designs and employed quantitative and mixed methods. Both studies and tools were conceptually well grounded, focusing mainly on outcomes, then process, and less frequently on impact measurement. Multiple forms of empirical validity and reliability evidence was present for most tools; however, psychometric characteristics were inconsistently assessed and reported. We identified a subset of studies (22) and accompanying tools distinguished by their empirical psychometric, pragmatic and study quality characteristics. While our review demonstrated psychometric and pragmatic improvements over previous reviews, challenges related to health research partnership assessment and the nascency of partnership science persist. CONCLUSION This systematic review identified multiple tools demonstrating empirical psychometric evidence, pragmatic strength and moderate study quality. Increased attention to psychometric and pragmatic requirements in tool development, testing and reporting is key to advancing health research partnership assessment and partnership science. PROSPERO CRD42021137932.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K. J. Mrklas
- Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3D10, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB T2N 4Z6 Canada
- Strategic Clinical Networks™, Provincial Clinical Excellence, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB Canada
| | - J. M. Boyd
- Knowledge Translation Program, St Michael’s Hospital, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON Canada
| | - S. Shergill
- Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB Canada
| | - S. Merali
- Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB Canada
| | - M. Khan
- Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB Canada
| | - L. Nowell
- Faculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB Canada
| | - A. Goertzen
- Faculty of Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB Canada
| | - L. M. Pfadenhauer
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology–IBE, Ludwig-Maximilian Universität Munich, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| | - K. Paul
- University of Calgary Summer Studentships Program, Calgary, AB Canada
| | - K. M. Sibley
- Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB Canada
- George & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB Canada
| | - L. Swain
- Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3D10, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB T2N 4Z6 Canada
| | - M. Vis-Dunbar
- University of British Columbia - Okanagan, Kelowna, BC Canada
| | - M. D. Hill
- Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3D10, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB T2N 4Z6 Canada
- Departments of Clinical Neurosciences, Medicine and Radiology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB Canada
- Hotchkiss Brain Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB Canada
| | | | - M. Tonelli
- Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB Canada
- Office of the Vice-President (Research), University of Calgary, Calgary, AB Canada
| | - I. D. Graham
- Centre for Implementation Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON Canada
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health & School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON Canada
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Mrklas KJ, Merali S, Khan M, Shergill S, Boyd JM, Nowell L, Pfadenhauer LM, Paul K, Goertzen A, Swain L, Sibley KM, Vis-Dunbar M, Hill MD, Raffin-Bouchal S, Tonelli M, Graham ID. How are health research partnerships assessed? A systematic review of outcomes, impacts, terminology and the use of theories, models and frameworks. Health Res Policy Syst 2022; 20:133. [DOI: 10.1186/s12961-022-00938-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2022] [Accepted: 11/09/2022] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Accurate, consistent assessment of outcomes and impacts is challenging in the health research partnerships domain. Increased focus on tool quality, including conceptual, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics, could improve the quantification, measurement and reporting partnership outcomes and impacts. This cascading review was undertaken as part of a coordinated, multicentre effort to identify, synthesize and assess a vast body of health research partnership literature.
Objective
To systematically assess the outcomes and impacts of health research partnerships, relevant terminology and the type/use of theories, models and frameworks (TMF) arising from studies using partnership assessment tools with known conceptual, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics.
Methods
Four electronic databases were searched (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus and PsycINFO) from inception to 2 June 2021. We retained studies containing partnership evaluation tools with (1) conceptual foundations (reference to TMF), (2) empirical, quantitative psychometric evidence (evidence of validity and reliability, at minimum) and (3) one or more pragmatic characteristics. Outcomes, impacts, terminology, definitions and TMF type/use were abstracted verbatim from eligible studies using a hybrid (independent abstraction–validation) approach and synthesized using summary statistics (quantitative), inductive thematic analysis and deductive categories (qualitative). Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD).
Results
Application of inclusion criteria yielded 37 eligible studies. Study quality scores were high (mean 80%, standard deviation 0.11%) but revealed needed improvements (i.e. methodological, reporting, user involvement in research design). Only 14 (38%) studies reported 48 partnership outcomes and 55 impacts; most were positive effects (43, 90% and 47, 89%, respectively). Most outcomes were positive personal, functional, structural and contextual effects; most impacts were personal, functional and contextual in nature. Most terms described outcomes (39, 89%), and 30 of 44 outcomes/impacts terms were unique, but few were explicitly defined (9, 20%). Terms were complex and mixed on one or more dimensions (e.g. type, temporality, stage, perspective). Most studies made explicit use of study-related TMF (34, 92%). There were 138 unique TMF sources, and these informed tool construct type/choice and hypothesis testing in almost all cases (36, 97%).
Conclusion
This study synthesized partnership outcomes and impacts, deconstructed term complexities and evolved our understanding of TMF use in tool development, testing and refinement studies. Renewed attention to basic concepts is necessary to advance partnership measurement and research innovation in the field.
Systematic review protocol registration: PROSPERO protocol registration: CRD42021137932 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=137932.
Collapse
|
11
|
McCormack S, Till K, Wenlock J, Whitehead S, Stokes KA, Bitcon M, Brown J, Cross M, Davies P, Falvey ÉC, Flahive S, Gardner A, Hendricks S, Johnston R, Mellalieu SD, Parmley J, Phillips G, Ramirez C, Stein J, Scantlebury S, West SW, Jones B. Contributors to negative biopsychosocial health or performance outcomes in rugby players (CoNBO): a systematic review and Delphi study protocol. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med 2022; 8:e001440. [PMID: 36249486 PMCID: PMC9557262 DOI: 10.1136/bmjsem-2022-001440] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/17/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
The importance of contributors that can result in negative player outcomes in sport and the feasibility and barriers to modifying these to optimise player health and well-being have yet to be established. Within rugby codes (rugby league, rugby union and rugby sevens), within male and female cohorts across playing levels (full-time senior, part-time senior, age grade), this project aims to develop a consensus on contributors to negative biopsychosocial outcomes in rugby players (known as the CoNBO study) and establish stakeholder perceived importance of the identified contributors and barriers to their management. This project will consist of three parts; part 1: a systematic review, part 2: a three-round expert Delphi study and part 3: stakeholder rating of feasibility and barriers to management. Within part 1, systematic searches of electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL) will be performed. The systematic review protocol is registered with PROSPERO. Studies will be searched to identify physical, psychological and/or social factors resulting in negative player outcomes in rugby. Part 2 will consist of a three-round expert Delphi consensus study to establish additional physical, psychological and/or social factors that result in negative player outcomes in rugby and their importance. In part 3, stakeholders (eg, coaches, chief executive officers and players) will provide perceptions of the feasibility and barriers to modifying the identified factors within their setting. On completion, several manuscripts will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. The findings of this project have worldwide relevance for stakeholders in the rugby codes. PROSPERO registration number CRD42022346751.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sam McCormack
- Carnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) centre, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK,England Performance Unit, Rugby Football League, Manchester, UK
| | - Kevin Till
- Carnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) centre, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK,Leeds Rhinos Rugby League club, Leeds, UK
| | - Jessica Wenlock
- Carnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) centre, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK,Leeds Rhinos Rugby League club, Leeds, UK
| | - Sarah Whitehead
- Carnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) centre, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK
| | - Keith A Stokes
- Department for Health, University of Bath, Bath, UK,Rugby Football Union, Twickenham, UK
| | | | - James Brown
- Carnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) centre, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK,Institute of Sport and Exercise Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa
| | | | | | - Éanna C Falvey
- World Rugby Limited, Dublin, Ireland,College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
| | | | - Andrew Gardner
- Carnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) centre, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK,Sydney School of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Sharief Hendricks
- Carnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) centre, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK,Division of Physiological Sciences, Department of Human Biology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa
| | - Rich Johnston
- Carnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) centre, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK,School of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Australia Catholic University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Stephen D Mellalieu
- Cardiff School of Sport and Health Sciences, Cardiff Metropolitan University—Cyncoed Campus, Cardiff, Cardiff, UK
| | - James Parmley
- Carnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) centre, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK
| | - Gemma Phillips
- Carnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) centre, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK,England Performance Unit, Rugby Football League, Manchester, UK,Hull Kingston Rovers Rugby League club, Hull, UK
| | - Carlos Ramirez
- Carnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) centre, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK,Scottich Rugby Union, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Joshua Stein
- National Rugby League, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Sean Scantlebury
- Carnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) centre, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK,England Performance Unit, Rugby Football League, Manchester, UK
| | - Stephen W West
- Department for Health, University of Bath, Bath, UK,Sport Injury Prevention Research Centre, Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - Ben Jones
- Carnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) centre, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK,England Performance Unit, Rugby Football League, Manchester, UK,Leeds Rhinos Rugby League club, Leeds, UK,Division of Physiological Sciences, Department of Human Biology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa,School of Science and Technology, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Goodman MS, Ackermann N, Haskell-Craig Z, Jackson S, Bowen DJ, Sanders Thompson VL. Construct validation of the Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST). RESEARCH INVOLVEMENT AND ENGAGEMENT 2022; 8:26. [PMID: 35710531 PMCID: PMC9204858 DOI: 10.1186/s40900-022-00360-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2021] [Accepted: 06/04/2022] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST) was developed to examine the level of partner (e.g., patients, caregivers, advocates, clinicians, community members) engagement in research studies. The REST is aligned with eight engagement principles based on the literature and consensus reached through a five round Delphi process. Each of the engagement principles has three-five corresponding items that are assessed on two Likert type scales quantity (how often: never, rarely, sometimes, often, always, not applicable) and quality (how well: poor, fair, good, very good, excellent, not applicable). We conducted a comprehensive validation of the REST. Despite the importance of partner engagement in research, currently no gold standard measure exists. METHODS Multiple strategies were employed to validate the REST. Here, we examine the internal consistency of items for each of the eight engagement principles. In addition, we examine the convergent validity of the comprehensive (32-item) REST with other measures (e.g., medical mistrust, Community Engagement in Research Index, Partnership Self-Assessment Tool, Wilder collaboration inventory, Partnership Assessment In community-based Research). We propose two scoring approaches for the REST; one aligned with the engagement principles and the other aligned with levels of community engagement: (1) outreach and education, (2) consultation, (3) cooperation, (4) collaboration, and (5) partnership. RESULTS The REST has strong internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha > 0.75) for each of the eight engagement principals measured on both scales (quality and quantity). The REST had negligible (e.g., medical mistrust, community engagement in research index), low (e.g., Partnership Assessment In community-based Research, Partnership Self-Assessment Tool- benefits scale), and moderate (e.g., Wilder collaboration inventory, Partnership Self-Assessment Tool- synergy scale) statistically significant correlations with other measures based on the Spearman rank correlation coefficient. These results suggest the REST is measuring something similar and correlated to the existing measures, but it captures a different construct (perceived research engagement). CONCLUSIONS The REST is a valid and reliable tool to assess research engagement of community health stakeholders in the research process. Valid tools to assess research engagement are necessary to examine the impact of engagement on the scientific process and scientific discovery and move the field of stakeholder engagement from best practices and lessons learned to evidence-based approaches based on empirical data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Melody S Goodman
- New York University School of Global Public Health, New York, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Knight SJ, Haibach JP, Hamilton AB, Whittle J, Ono SS, Butler J, Flower M, Ray CD, Pugh MJ, Zickmund SL. Veteran Engagement in Health Services Research: a Conceptual Model. J Gen Intern Med 2022; 37:94-98. [PMID: 35349018 PMCID: PMC8993964 DOI: 10.1007/s11606-021-07309-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2021] [Accepted: 11/24/2021] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
With 20 million living veterans and millions more immediate family members, and approximately 9 million veterans enrolled in the nationally networked VA healthcare system, representing the interests and needs of veterans in this complex community is a substantial endeavor. Based on the importance of engaging Veterans in research, the VA Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D) Service convened a Working Group of VA researchers and Veterans to conduct a review of patient engagement models and develop recommendations for an approach to engage Veterans in health research that would incorporate their unique lived experiences and interests, and their perspectives on research priorities. The Working Group considered the specific context for Veteran engagement in research that includes other VA stakeholders from the operational and clinical leadership of the VA Health Administration (VHA). The resulting model identifies the range of potential stakeholders and three domains of relevant constructs-processes expected to facilitate Veteran engagement in research with other stakeholders, individual stakeholder and external factors, and outcomes. The expectation is that Veteran engagement will benefit research to policy and practice translation, including increasing the transparency of research and producing knowledge that is readily accepted and implemented in healthcare.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sara J Knight
- Informatics, Decision Enhancement, and Analytic Sciences (IDEAS) Center of Innovation, Research and Development Service, VA Salt Lake City Healthcare System, 500 Foothill Drive, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. .,Division of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
| | - Jeffrey P Haibach
- Veteran Consulting and Research, Eastern Region, USA.,US Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Alison B Hamilton
- Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation & Policy, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA.,Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Jeff Whittle
- Clement J Zablocki VA Medical Center, Medical College of Wisconsin, Center for Advancing Population Science, Milwaukee, WI, USA.,Department of Medicine, Clement J Zablocki VA Medical Center, Milwaukee, WI, USA
| | - Sarah S Ono
- Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care, VA Portland Healthcare System, Portland, OR, USA.,Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA
| | - Jorie Butler
- Informatics, Decision Enhancement, and Analytic Sciences (IDEAS) Center of Innovation, Research and Development Service, VA Salt Lake City Healthcare System, 500 Foothill Drive, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.,Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, VA Salt Lake City Healthcare System, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Mark Flower
- Department of Medicine, Clement J Zablocki VA Medical Center, Milwaukee, WI, USA.,Veteran Peer Services, Mental Health America of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA
| | | | - Mary Jo Pugh
- Informatics, Decision Enhancement, and Analytic Sciences (IDEAS) Center of Innovation, Research and Development Service, VA Salt Lake City Healthcare System, 500 Foothill Drive, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.,Division of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Susan L Zickmund
- Informatics, Decision Enhancement, and Analytic Sciences (IDEAS) Center of Innovation, Research and Development Service, VA Salt Lake City Healthcare System, 500 Foothill Drive, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.,Division of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Kaye DK. Navigating ethical challenges of conducting randomized clinical trials on COVID-19. Philos Ethics Humanit Med 2022; 17:2. [PMID: 35086524 PMCID: PMC8794733 DOI: 10.1186/s13010-022-00115-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2021] [Accepted: 01/10/2022] [Indexed: 06/14/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The contemporary frameworks for clinical research require informed consent for research participation that includes disclosure of material information, comprehension of disclosed information and voluntary consent to research participation. There is thus an urgent need to test, and an ethical imperative, to test, modify or refine medications or healthcare plans that could reduce patient morbidity, lower healthcare costs or strengthen healthcare systems. METHODS Conceptual review. DISCUSSION Although some allocation principles seem better than others, no single moral principle allocates interventions justly, necessitating combining the moral principles into multiprinciple allocation systems. The urgency notwithstanding, navigating ethical challenges related to conducting corona virus disease (COVID-19) clinical trials is mandatory, in order to safeguard the safety and welfare of research participants, ensure autonomy of participants, reduce possibilities for exploitation and ensure opportunities for research participation. The ethical challenges to can be categorized as challenges in allocation of resources for research; challenges of clinical equipoise in relation to the research questions; challenges of understanding disclosed information in potential participants; and challenges in obtaining informed consent. CONCLUSION To navigate these challenges, stakeholders need a delicate balance of moral principles during allocation of resources for research. Investigators need to apply information processing theories to aid decision-making about research participation or employ acceptable modifications to improve the informed consent process. Research and ethics committees should strengthen research review and oversight to ensure rigor, responsiveness and transparency.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dan Kabonge Kaye
- College of Health Sciences, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7072, Kampala, Uganda.
- Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, Deering Hall, 1809 Ashland Avenue, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Psychometric Properties of Heavy Work Investment Measures: A Systematic Review. SUSTAINABILITY 2021. [DOI: 10.3390/su132212539] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
In recent years, the study of heavy work investment (HWI) has been diversifying greatly in the various fields of application in the organizational field, for example, occupational health, human resources, quality at work among others. However, to date, no systematic review has been carried out to examine the methodological quality of the instruments designed to measure HWI. Therefore, the present systematic review examines the psychometric properties of three main measures of HWI: Workaholism Battery (WorkBAT), Work Addiction Risk Test (WART), and Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS). Five electronic databases were systematically searched, selecting psychometric articles. Of the 2621 articles identified, 35 articles met all inclusion criteria published between 1992 and 2019. The findings indicated that most of the articles were focused on reviewing psychometric properties, analyses were conducted from classical test theory, collected validity evidence based on internal structure and relationship with other variables, and reliability of scores was obtained through the internal consistency method. Of the instruments reviewed, the DUWAS is the one with the highest methodological quality. Recommendations are made for future research to address the psychometric study of these instruments based on recent advances in the field of organizational measurement.
Collapse
|
16
|
Linder DE, Folta SC, Must A, Mulé CM, Cash SB, Halbreich ED, Colón C, Sullivan S, Sanabria E, Gibbs D, Farrell T. A Stakeholder-Engaged Approach to Development of an Animal-Assisted Intervention for Obesity Prevention Among Youth With Autism Spectrum Disorder and Their Pet Dogs. Front Vet Sci 2021; 8:735432. [PMID: 34869717 PMCID: PMC8636006 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2021.735432] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/02/2021] [Accepted: 10/11/2021] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Stakeholder involvement in research has been demonstrated to increase the effectiveness, validity, and quality of a study. This paper describes the engagement of a stakeholder panel in the development and implementation of an animal-assisted intervention (AAI) assessment and program for children diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Canines for Autism Activity and Nutrition (CAAN) aims to promote physical activity and wellness among children diagnosed with ASD by integrating activities with their pet dog during the child's ongoing Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) in-home therapy sessions. Feedback from stakeholders guided program development at each stage of the research process, including this publication. Utilizing a stakeholder-informed approach was essential for the development of assessment tools, program materials, and program design. Methods that may assist others to effectively partner with stakeholders to implement an AAI among children diagnosed with ASD or related disorders are described.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Deborah E. Linder
- Tufts Institute for Human-Animal Interaction, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University, North Grafton, MA, United States
| | - Sara C. Folta
- Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Aviva Must
- Department of Public Health & Community Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Christina M. Mulé
- Division of Developmental Behavioral Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States
- Division of Developmental Behavioral Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Sean B. Cash
- Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Eli D. Halbreich
- Department of Psychology, Tufts University School of Arts and Sciences, Medford, MA, United States
| | | | - Sandy Sullivan
- Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Boston, MA, United States
| | | | - Debra Gibbs
- Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University, North Grafton, MA, United States
| | - Terri Farrell
- The Shriver Center, The University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Storytelling training to promote stakeholder engagement in research dissemination. J Clin Transl Sci 2021; 6:e5. [PMID: 35211332 PMCID: PMC8826007 DOI: 10.1017/cts.2021.830] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/31/2021] [Revised: 07/21/2021] [Accepted: 07/26/2021] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
Abstract
Storytelling is increasingly recognized as a culturally relevant, human-centered strategy and has been linked to improvements in health knowledge, behavior, and outcomes. The Community Engagement Program of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research designed and implemented a storytelling training program as a potentially versatile approach to promote stakeholder engagement. Data collected from multiple sources, including participant ratings, responses to open-ended questions, and field notes, consistently pointed to high-level satisfaction and acceptability of the program. As a next step, the storytelling training process and its impact need to be further investigated.
Collapse
|
18
|
Hendricks S. Rethinking innovation and the role of stakeholder engagement in sport and exercise medicine. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med 2021; 7:e001009. [PMID: 34123408 PMCID: PMC8160180 DOI: 10.1136/bmjsem-2020-001009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/03/2022] Open
Abstract
In sport and exercise medicine, increasing pressure to improve athlete health outcomes and performance with limited resources has prompted an emphasis on innovation. A key component to innovation is stakeholder participation and engagement, that is, the involvement of those affected by the outcomes, such as end users and actors (the person(s) performing the required actions/behaviour change), of the research process. Several research frameworks in sport and exercise medicine highly recommend stakeholder engagement as part of the research process. There are, however, different levels to how engaged a stakeholder can be in a research project, and this level of engagement may be dependent on the researchers' goals. Stakeholder engagement can be organised on a continuum based on the stakeholder's relationship to the research and how involved they are in the project's decision-making process. This continuum can be used as a rating scale to evaluate and monitor the degree of perceived stakeholder participation in a research project. There are different paths to innovation in research, which are interlinked, and ideas and knowledge flow between them. Considering the continuum of stakeholder engagement and paths to innovation, this article highlights how different research types require different degrees of stakeholder engagement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sharief Hendricks
- Division of Exercise Science and Sports Medicine, Department of Human Biology, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa.,Carnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) centre, Institute for Sport, Physical Actvity and Leisure, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.,Health, Physical Activity, Lifestyle and Sport Research Centre, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Burns JA, Holden S, Korzec K, Dorris ER. From intent to implementation: Factors affecting public involvement in life science research. PLoS One 2021; 16:e0250023. [PMID: 33909653 PMCID: PMC8081191 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/10/2020] [Accepted: 03/29/2021] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Public involvement is key to closing the gap between research production and research use, and the only way to achieving ultimate transparency in science. The majority of life science research is not public-facing, but is funded by the public and impacts communities. We undertook an exploratory survey of researchers within the life sciences to better understand their views and perceived challenges to involving the public in their research. As survey response rate could not be determined, interpretation of the results must be cautious. We had a valid response cohort of n = 110 researchers, of whom 90% were primarily laboratory based. Using a mixed methods approach, we demonstrate that a top-down approach is key to motivate progression of life scientists from feeling positive towards public involvement to actually engaging in it. Researchers who viewed public involvement as beneficial to their research were more likely to have direct experience of doing it. We demonstrate that the systemic flaws in the way life sciences research enterprise is organised, including the promotion system, hyper-competition, and time pressures are major barriers to involving the public in the scientific process. Scientists are also apprehensive of being involuntarily involved in the current politicized climate; misinformation and publicity hype surrounding science nowadays makes them hesitant to share their early and in-progress research. The time required to deliberate study design and relevance, plan and build relationships for sustained involvement, provide and undertake training, and improve communication in the current research environment is often considered nonpragmatic, particularly for early career researchers. In conclusion, a top-down approach involving institutional incentives and infrastructure appears most effective at transitioning researchers from feeling positive towards public involvement to actually implementing it.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John A. Burns
- Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, New York, United States of America
- American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York, United States of America
- eLife Ambassador for Good Practice in Science, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Sinead Holden
- Clinical Research Centre, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Kora Korzec
- eLife Sciences Publishing, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Emma R. Dorris
- eLife Ambassador for Good Practice in Science, Cambridge, United Kingdom
- School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Ametaj AA, Smith AM, Valentine SE. A Stakeholder-Engaged Process for Adapting an Evidence-Based Intervention for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder for Peer Delivery. ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY IN MENTAL HEALTH AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH 2021; 48:793-809. [PMID: 33813717 DOI: 10.1007/s10488-021-01129-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/15/2021] [Indexed: 12/01/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Peer providers represent a growing sector of the U.S. workforce, yet guidance is needed on best practices for adapting behavioral health interventions for peer delivery. METHODS We utilized the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based interventions (FRAME; Wiltsey Stirman et al. 2013, 2019) to describe how we systematically adapted Skills Training in Affective and Interpersonal Regulation (STAIR) for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) for peer delivery. Our process was iterative and relied on engagement of multiple stakeholders, including a work group of organizational leaders (N = 5), peer interventionists (N = 4), intervention experts (N = 2), and trial participants (N = 18). The FRAME was used to guide rapid coding across multiple data sources, including researcher field notes, meeting minutes, and intervention manual documents, and content analysis of semi-structured interviews with peer interventionists and trial participants. RESULTS Phase 1 (pre-trial) focused on modifications for fit with the local context and peer model. Key modifications focused on improving intervention design and packaging, removing clinical and stigmatizing language, and addressing peer interventionist training gaps. We used a hybrid approach to delivery, whereby we integrated peer model principles (self-disclosure, mutuality) into a directive approach. Phase 2 (trial) included reactive fidelity-consistent adaptations, such as additional educational resources. Phase 3 (post-trial) focused on adaptations to support roll-out of the intervention at the peer organization (e.g., group format). CONCLUSION Our stakeholder-engaged process may serve as a helpful exemplar to others tailoring interventions for peer delivery. Future research is needed to understand the role of stakeholder engagement and adaptation in implementation success.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amantia A Ametaj
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA, 02115, USA
| | - Ash M Smith
- Department of Psychiatry, Boston Medical Center, 720 Harrison Ave, Suite 1150, Boston, MA, 02118, USA
| | - Sarah E Valentine
- Department of Psychiatry, Boston Medical Center, 720 Harrison Ave, Suite 1150, Boston, MA, 02118, USA. .,Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine, 72 E Concord St, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Han HR, Xu A, Mendez KJW, Okoye S, Cudjoe J, Bahouth M, Reese M, Bone L, Dennison-Himmelfarb C. Exploring community engaged research experiences and preferences: a multi-level qualitative investigation. RESEARCH INVOLVEMENT AND ENGAGEMENT 2021; 7:19. [PMID: 33785074 PMCID: PMC8008581 DOI: 10.1186/s40900-021-00261-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2020] [Accepted: 03/09/2021] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Community engagement may make research more relevant, translatable, and sustainable, hence improving the possibility of reducing health disparities. The purpose of this study was to explore strategies for community engagement adopted by research teams and identify areas for enhancing engagement in future community engaged research. METHODS The Community Engagement Program of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research hosted a forum to engage researchers and community partners in group discussion to reflect on their diverse past and current experiences in planning, implementing, and evaluating community engagement in health research. A total of 50 researchers, research staff, and community partners participated in five concurrent semi-structured group interviews and a whole group wrap-up session. Group interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS Four themes with eight subthemes were identified. Main themes included: Community engagement is an ongoing and iterative process; Community partner roles must be well-defined and clearly communicated; Mutual trust and transparency are central to community engagement; and Measuring community outcomes is an evolving area. Relevant subthemes were: engaging community partners in various stages of research; mission-driven vs. "checking the box"; breadth and depth of engagement; roles of community partner; recruitment and selection of community partners; building trust; clear communication for transparency; and conflict in community engaged research. CONCLUSION The findings highlight the benefits and challenges of community engaged research. Enhanced capacity building for community engagement, including training and communication tools for both community and researcher partners, are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hae-Ra Han
- The Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD, USA.
- The Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Community Engagement Program, Baltimore, MD, USA.
- The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
| | - Ashley Xu
- The Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Kyra J W Mendez
- The Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Safiyyah Okoye
- The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | | | - Mona Bahouth
- The Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD, USA
- The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Melanie Reese
- The Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Community Engagement Program, Baltimore, MD, USA
- Older Women Embracing Life, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Lee Bone
- The Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Community Engagement Program, Baltimore, MD, USA
- The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Cheryl Dennison-Himmelfarb
- The Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD, USA
- The Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Community Engagement Program, Baltimore, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Thompson VLS, Leahy N, Ackermann N, Bowen DJ, Goodman MS. Community partners' responses to items assessing stakeholder engagement: Cognitive response testing in measure development. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0241839. [PMID: 33227007 PMCID: PMC7682898 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241839] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2020] [Accepted: 10/21/2020] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Despite recognition of the importance of stakeholder input into research, there is a lack of validated measures to assess how well constituencies are engaged and their input integrated into research design. Measurement theory suggests that a community engagement measure should use clear and simple language and capture important components of underlying constructs, resulting in a valid measure that is accessible to a broad audience. Objective The primary objective of this study was to evaluate how community members understood and responded to a measure of community engagement developed to be reliable, valid, easily administered, and broadly usable. Method Cognitive response interviews were completed, during which participants described their reactions to items and how they processed them. Participants were asked to interpret item meaning, paraphrase items, and identify difficult or problematic terms and phrases, as well as provide any concerns with response options while responding to 16 of 32 survey items. Results The results of the cognitive response interviews of participants (N = 16) suggest concerns about plain language and literacy, clarity of question focus, and the lack of context clues to facilitate processing in response to items querying research experience. Minimal concerns were related to response options. Participants suggested changes in words and terms, as well as item structure. Conclusion Qualitative research can improve the validity and accessibility of measures that assess stakeholder experience of community-engaged research. The findings suggest wording and sentence structure changes that improve ability to assess implementation of community engagement and its impact on research outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Nora Leahy
- Washington University in St. Louis, School of Medicine, St. Louis, MI, United States of America
| | - Nicole Ackermann
- Washington University in St. Louis, School of Medicine, St. Louis, MI, United States of America
| | - Deborah J. Bowen
- University of Washington, Department of Bioethics and Humanities, Seattle, WA, United States of America
| | - Melody S. Goodman
- New York University, School of Global Public Health, New York, NY, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Nsangi A, Oxman AD, Oxman M, Rosenbaum SE, Semakula D, Ssenyonga R, Mugisha M, Chelagat F, Kaseje M, Nyirazinyoye L, Chalmers I, Sewankambo NK. Protocol for assessing stakeholder engagement in the development and evaluation of the Informed Health Choices resources teaching secondary school students to think critically about health claims and choices. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0239985. [PMID: 33045009 PMCID: PMC7549807 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239985] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/30/2020] [Accepted: 09/17/2020] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND As part of a five year plan (2019-2023), the Informed Health Choices Project, is developing and evaluating resources for helping secondary school students learn to think critically about health claims and choices. We will bring together key stakeholders; such as secondary school teachers and students, our main target for the IHC secondary school resources, school administrators, policy makers, curriculum development specialists and parents, to enable us gain insight about the context. OBJECTIVES To ensure that stakeholders are effectively and appropriately engaged in the design, evaluation and dissemination of the learning resources.To evaluate the extent to which stakeholders were successfully engaged. METHODS Using a multi-stage stratified sampling method, we will identify a representative sample of secondary schools with varied characteristics that might modify the effects of the learning resources such as, the school location (rural, semi-urban or urban), ownership (private, public) and ICT facilities (under resourced, highly resourced). A sample of schools will be randomly selected from the schools in each stratum. We will aim to recruit a diverse sample of students and secondary school teachers from those schools. Other stakeholders will be purposively selected to ensure a diverse range of experience and expertise. RESULTS Together with the teacher and student networks and the advisory panels, we will establish measurable success criteria that reflect the objectives of engaging stakeholders at the start of the project and evaluate the extent to which those criteria were met at the end of the project. CONCLUSION We aim for an increase in research uptake, improve quality and appropriateness of research results, accountability and social justice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Allen Nsangi
- College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Andrew David Oxman
- Centre for Informed Health Choices, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
| | - Matt Oxman
- Centre for Informed Health Choices, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
- Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway
| | - Sarah E. Rosenbaum
- Centre for Informed Health Choices, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
| | - Daniel Semakula
- College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Ronald Ssenyonga
- College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Michael Mugisha
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
- University of Rwanda, Kigali, Rwanda
| | - Faith Chelagat
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
- Tropical Institute of Community Health and Development (TICH), Kisumu, Kenya
| | - Margaret Kaseje
- Tropical Institute of Community Health and Development (TICH), Kisumu, Kenya
| | | | - Iain Chalmers
- Centre for Informed Health Choices, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
| | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
Bayne AI, Dullabh P, Skillman M, Ubri P, Rotondo C, Zainulbhai S, Frosch DL, Devers KJ. Engaging patients and stakeholders in preresearch: findings from the Pipeline to Proposal Awards Initiative. J Comp Eff Res 2020; 9:721-736. [PMID: 32672474 DOI: 10.2217/cer-2019-0203] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Aim: The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Pipeline to Proposal (P2P) Awards Initiative funded 177 awardees to engage patients and stakeholder partners in preresearch. Based on P2P, we described engagement strategies; outcomes; facilitators; and challenges to inform research funders and stakeholders participating in preresearch. Materials & methods: We used a qualitative approach based on content analysis of program data and interviews with P2P awardees and partners. Results: Awardees developed partnership infrastructure by recruiting patients and stakeholders, establishing clear roles, and providing training. Building trust was key to engaging patients and stakeholders in preresearch. Awardees reported partners were more likely to engage in PCOR in the future. Conclusion: P2P awardees increased capacity of patient and stakeholder partnerships to conduct PCOR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alycia I Bayne
- NORC at The University of Chicago, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA
| | | | - Megan Skillman
- NORC at The University of Chicago, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA
| | - Petry Ubri
- NORC at The University of Chicago, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA
| | | | - Sabiha Zainulbhai
- Coalition for Nonprofit Housing & Economic Development, Washington, DC 20005, USA
| | - Dominick L Frosch
- Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute and Sutter Health Center for Health Systems Research, Palo Alto, CA 94301, USA
| | - Kelly J Devers
- NORC at The University of Chicago, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Luger TM, Hamilton AB, True G. Measuring Community-Engaged Research Contexts, Processes, and Outcomes: A Mapping Review. Milbank Q 2020; 98:493-553. [PMID: 32428339 PMCID: PMC7296434 DOI: 10.1111/1468-0009.12458] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Policy Points Community‐engaged research (CEnR) engenders meaningful academic‐community partnerships to improve research quality and health outcomes. CEnR has increasingly been adopted by health care systems, funders, and communities looking for solutions to intractable problems. It has been difficult to systematically measure CEnR's impact, as most evaluations focus on project‐specific outcomes. Similarly, partners have struggled with identifying appropriate measures to assess outcomes of interest. To make a case for CEnR's value, we must demonstrate the impacts of CEnR over time. We compiled recent measures and developed an interactive data visualization to facilitate more consistent measurement of CEnR's theoretical domains.
Context Community‐engaged research (CEnR) aims to engender meaningful academic‐community partnerships to increase research quality and impact, improve individual and community health, and build capacity for uptake of evidence‐based practices. Given the urgency to solve society's pressing public health problems and increasing competition for funding, it is important to demonstrate CEnR's value. Most evaluations focus on project‐specific outcomes, making it difficult to demonstrate CEnR's broader impact. Moreover, it is challenging for partnerships to identify assessments of interest beyond process measures. We conducted a mapping review to help partnerships find and select measures to evaluate CEnR projects and to characterize areas where further development of measures is needed. Methods We searched electronic bibliographic databases using relevant search terms from 2009 to 2018 and scanned CEnR projects to identify unpublished measures. Through review and reduction, we found 69 measures of CEnR's context, process, or outcomes that are potentially generalizable beyond a specific health condition or population. We abstracted data from descriptions of each measure to catalog purpose, aim (context, process, or outcome), and specific domains being measured. Findings We identified 28 measures of the conditions under which CEnR is conducted and factors to support effective academic‐community collaboration (context); 43 measures evaluating constructs such as group dynamics and trust (process); and 43 measures of impacts such as benefits and challenges of CEnR participation and system and capacity changes (outcomes). Conclusions We found substantial variation in how academic‐community partnerships conceptualize and define even similar domains. Achieving more consistency in how partnerships evaluate key constructs could reduce measurement confusion apparent in the literature. A hybrid approach whereby partnerships discuss common metrics and develop locally important measures can address CEnR's multiple goals. Our accessible data visualization serves as a convenient resource to support partnerships’ evaluation goals and may help to build the evidence base for CEnR through the use of common measures across studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tana M Luger
- VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Health Services Research and Development Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy
| | - Alison B Hamilton
- VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Health Services Research and Development Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy.,David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles
| | - Gala True
- Southeast Louisiana Veterans Healthcare System, South Central Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center.,Louisiana State University School of Medicine, Section of Community and Population Medicine
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Feeney M, Evers C, Agpalo D, Cone L, Fleisher J, Schroeder K. Utilizing patient advocates in Parkinson's disease: A proposed framework for patient engagement and the modern metrics that can determine its success. Health Expect 2020; 23:722-730. [PMID: 32363785 PMCID: PMC7495075 DOI: 10.1111/hex.13064] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/11/2019] [Revised: 03/31/2020] [Accepted: 04/04/2020] [Indexed: 01/25/2023] Open
Abstract
The wide application of patient engagement and its associated benefits has increased across government, academic and pharmaceutical research. However, neither an identified standard practice for the process of engagement, nor utilization of common metrics to assess associated outcomes, exists. Parkinson's Foundation developed a patient engagement framework and metrics to assess engagement within the academic research and drug development sectors. This approach was developed over the course of several years through assessing the literature, acquiring feedback from researchers and people with Parkinson's disease and adapting practices to be relevant and generalizable across patient engagement projects. This framework includes the: 1) creation of a scope of work, 2) establishment of guiding principles, 3) selection and training of participants, 4) co‐determination of project metrics, 5) execution of the project and 6) dissemination of project findings. Parkinson's Foundation has also worked with academic, government and pharmaceutical stakeholders to identify metrics that assess both the quality of patient engagement and outcomes associated with patient engagement on projects. By improving patient engagement project methodologies and metrics, global clinical trials can have access to evidence‐based patient engagement practices to more efficiently capture the needs of, and potentially benefit, the patient community.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Lisa Cone
- Parkinson's Foundation, New York, New York
| | - Jori Fleisher
- Section of Movement Disorders, Department of Neurological Sciences, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
| | | |
Collapse
|
27
|
Ortiz K, Nash J, Shea L, Oetzel J, Garoutte J, Sanchez-Youngman S, Wallerstein N. Partnerships, Processes, and Outcomes: A Health Equity-Focused Scoping Meta-Review of Community-Engaged Scholarship. Annu Rev Public Health 2020; 41:177-199. [PMID: 31922931 PMCID: PMC8095013 DOI: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094220] [Citation(s) in RCA: 70] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
In recent decades, there has been remarkable growth in scholarship examining the usefulness of community-engaged research (CEnR) and community-based participatory research (CBPR) for eliminating health inequities.This article seeks to synthesize the extant literature of systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and other related reviews regarding the context, processes, and research designs and interventions underlying CEnR that optimize its effectiveness. Through a scoping review, we have utilized an empirically derived framework of CBPR to map this literature and identify key findings and priorities for future research. Our study found 100 reviews of CEnR that largely support the CBPR conceptual framework.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kasim Ortiz
- Department of Sociology and Criminology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, USA;
- College of Population Health, Center for Participatory Research, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, USA
- Institute for the Study of "Race" and Social Justice, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, USA
| | - Jacob Nash
- College of Population Health, Center for Participatory Research, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, USA
| | - Logan Shea
- College of Population Health, Center for Participatory Research, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, USA
| | - John Oetzel
- Waikato Management School, University of Waikato, 3240 Hamilton, New Zealand
| | - Justin Garoutte
- College of Population Health, Center for Participatory Research, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, USA
- Behavioral Health Research Center of the Southwest (BHRCS), Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE), Albuquerque, New Mexico 87106, USA
| | - Shannon Sanchez-Youngman
- College of Population Health, Center for Participatory Research, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, USA
- Center for Social Policy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, USA
- School of Public Administration, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, USA
| | - Nina Wallerstein
- College of Population Health, Center for Participatory Research, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, USA
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Goodman MS, Ackermann N, Bowen DJ, Panel D, Thompson VS. Reaching Consensus on Principles of Stakeholder Engagement in Research. Prog Community Health Partnersh 2020; 14:117-127. [PMID: 32280129 PMCID: PMC7867997 DOI: 10.1353/cpr.2020.0014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Stakeholder-engaged research is an umbrella term for the types of research that have community, patient, and/or stakeholder engagement, feedback, and bidirectional communication as approaches used in the research process. The level of stakeholder engagement across studies can vary greatly, from minimal engagement to fully collaborative partnerships. OBJECTIVES To present the process of reaching consensus among stakeholder and academic experts on the stakeholder engagement principles (EPs) and to identify definitions for each principle. METHODS We convened 19 national experts, 18 of whom remained engaged in a five-round Delphi process. The Delphi panel consisted of a broad range of stakeholders (e.g., patients, caregivers, advocacy groups, clinicians, researchers). We used web-based surveys for most rounds (1-3 and 5) and an in-person meeting for round 4. Panelists evaluated EP titles and definitions with a goal of reaching consensus (>80% agreement). Panelists' comments guided modifications, with greater weight given to non-academic stakeholder input. CONCLUSIONS EP titles and definitions were modified over five Delphi rounds. The panel reached consensus on eight EPs (dropping four, modifying four, and adding one) and corresponding definitions. The Delphi process allowed for a stakeholder-engaged approach to methodological research. Stakeholder engagement in research is time consuming and requires greater effort but may yield a better, more relevant outcome than more traditional scientist-only processes. This stakeholder-engaged process of reaching consensus on EPs and definitions provides a key initial step for the content validation of a survey tool to examine the level of stakeholder engagement in research studies.
Collapse
|
29
|
Martinez J, Wong C, Piersol CV, Bieber DC, Perry BL, Leland NE. Stakeholder engagement in research: a scoping review of current evaluation methods. J Comp Eff Res 2019; 8:1327-1341. [PMID: 31736341 DOI: 10.2217/cer-2019-0047] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Aim: Evaluating stakeholder engagement can capture what meaningful engagement in research entails, how it develops, and how it is experienced by all collaborators. We conducted a scoping review of recent approaches for evaluating engagement in research and present a descriptive overview of our findings. Methods: We searched peer-reviewed journal articles published worldwide in English between January 2013 and June 2018. Results: Our final sample consisted of 17 articles. Various approaches for evaluating stakeholder engagement were identified including qualitative approaches, surveys and engagement logs. Discussion & conclusion: We identified evaluation approaches that varied in quality, detail and methods. Valid, systematic and inclusive approaches that are developed with research partners and are inclusive of diverse perspectives are an important area for future research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jenny Martinez
- Department of Occupational Therapy, Jefferson College of Rehabilitation Sciences, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA
| | - Carin Wong
- Mrs TH Chan Division of Occupational Science & Occupational Therapy, Herman Ostrow School of Dentistry, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA
| | - Catherine Verrier Piersol
- Department of Occupational Therapy, Jefferson College of Rehabilitation Sciences, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA
| | | | - Bonita L Perry
- Communication Department, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
| | - Natalie E Leland
- Department of Occupational Therapy, School of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Goodman MS, Ackermann N, Bowen DJ, Thompson V. Content validation of a quantitative stakeholder engagement measure. JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY 2019; 47:1937-1951. [PMID: 31475370 PMCID: PMC7893513 DOI: 10.1002/jcop.22239] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/29/2019] [Revised: 08/15/2019] [Accepted: 08/16/2019] [Indexed: 06/01/2023]
Abstract
AIM Using a stakeholder-engaged approach, this study conducted content validation and item reduction of a quantitative measure of research engagement. METHODS A five-round modified Delphi process was used to reach consensus on items. Rounds 1-3 and 5 were conducted using web-based surveys. Round 4 consisted of a 2-day, in-person meeting. Delphi panelists received individualized reports outlining individual and aggregate group responses after rounds 1-3. RESULTS Over the five-round process, items were added, dropped, modified, and moved from one engagement principle to another. The number of items was reduced from 48 to 32, with three to five items corresponding to eight engagement principles. CONCLUSIONS Research that develops standardized, reliable, and accurate measures to assess stakeholder engagement is essential to understanding the impact of engagement on scientific discovery and the scientific process. Valid quantitative measures to assess stakeholder engagement in research are necessary to assess associations between engagement and research outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Melody S. Goodman
- Department of Biostatistics, College of Global Public Health, New York University, New York, New York
| | - Nicole Ackermann
- Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Deborah J. Bowen
- Bioethics and Humanities, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
| | - Vetta Thompson
- Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Baumann AA, Mejia A, Lachman JM, Parra Cardona JR, López-Zerón G, Amador Buenabad NG, Vargas E, Domenech Rodríguez MM. Parenting Programs for Underserved Populations in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Issues of Scientific Integrity and Social Justice. GLOBAL SOCIAL WELFARE : RESEARCH, POLICY & PRACTICE 2019; 6:199-207. [PMID: 32095423 PMCID: PMC7036747 DOI: 10.1007/s40609-018-0121-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
Research suggests that parenting programs are effective for preventing behavioral and emotional difficulties in children, but a lot more attention needs to be paid to issues of context and culture during the development, testing and implementation of these interventions. The views and needs of underserved and disenfranchised communities in the US and the Global South are often not taken into account for the development and testing of interventions. The successful implementation of evidence-based interventions for vulnerable children and families in underserved and marginalized communities requires careful consideration of how existing paradigms of prevention, evaluation, and implementation science impact issues of social justice and equity. This paper will describe how a team of parenting program researchers has been collaborating with their partners globally in generating local knowledge by balancing the need for rigorous scientific methods with issues of power. Authors from the U.S., Latin America, Africa and Southeast Asia draw on their experiences regarding challenges and successes with issues regarding study design and measurement, the transferability and adaptation of interventions, and the dissemination and implementation of different parenting interventions while placing communities at the center of their efforts through participatory methods. We describe innovative approaches that span the continuum of intervention development, adaptation, optimization, evaluation, implementation, and scale up of different parenting programs for vulnerable children and families across the world. We conclude by offering specific and pragmatic recommendations to increase access of culturally relevant and effective parenting programs in these communities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Anilena Mejia
- Instituto de Investigaciones Científicas y Servicios de Alta
Tecnología (INDICASAT)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
32
|
Soobiah C, Straus SE, Manley G, Marr S, Paus Jenssen E, Teare S, Hamid J, Tricco AC, Moore A. Engaging knowledge users in a systematic review on the comparative effectiveness of geriatrician-led models of care is possible: A cross-sectional survey using the Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool. J Clin Epidemiol 2019; 113:58-63. [PMID: 31129259 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.05.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2018] [Revised: 04/24/2019] [Accepted: 05/14/2019] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A systematic review (SR) was conducted to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of geriatrician-led models of care, and an integrated knowledge translation (iKT) approach facilitated SR relevance. Activities to engage knowledge users (KUs) in the SR were evaluated for perceived level of engagement. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING KUs included patients, caregivers, geriatricians, and policymakers from three Canadian provinces. Activities included 1) modified Delphi to select outcomes; 2) cross-sectional survey to select outcome measures, and 3) in-person meeting to discuss SR findings. KU engagement was assessed using the Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PEET) after the second and third activities. KUs rated the extent of successful engagement using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from "no extent" to "very large extent." RESULTS In total, 15 KUs completed the PEET: eight geriatricians, four policymakers, two patients, and one caregiver. Median engagement scores across all activities (median range: 6.00-6.50) indicated that KUs felt engaged. Differences were observed for activity type; perceived engagement at in-person meeting resulted in higher meta-criteria scores for trust (P = 0.005), legitimacy (P = 0.003), fairness (P = 0.013), and competency (P = 0.035) compared with online activities. CONCLUSIONS KUs can be engaged meaningfully in SR processes. Their perceived engagement was higher for in-person than for online activities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charlene Soobiah
- Institute for Health Policy, Management & Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College St 4th floor, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M6, Canada; Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria St, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1T8, Canada
| | - Sharon E Straus
- Institute for Health Policy, Management & Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College St 4th floor, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M6, Canada; Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria St, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1T8, Canada; Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, 200 Elizabeth Street, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2C4, Canada.
| | - Gayle Manley
- Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria St, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1T8, Canada
| | - Sharon Marr
- Division of Geriatric Medicine, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada
| | - Elliot Paus Jenssen
- Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria St, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1T8, Canada
| | - Sylvia Teare
- Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4Z6, Canada
| | - Jemila Hamid
- Clinical Research Unit, Research Institute of Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Research Institute, 401 Smyth Rd, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8L1, Canada
| | - Andrea C Tricco
- Institute for Health Policy, Management & Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College St 4th floor, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M6, Canada; Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria St, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1T8, Canada; Epidemiology Division, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College St, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M7, Canada
| | - Ainsley Moore
- Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, 100 Main St W, Hamilton, Ontario L8P 1H6, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Boivin A. From Craft to Reflective Art and Science Comment on "Metrics and Evaluation Tools for Patient Engagement in Healthcare Organization- and System-Level Decision-Making: A Systematic Review". Int J Health Policy Manag 2019; 8:124-127. [PMID: 30980625 PMCID: PMC6462208 DOI: 10.15171/ijhpm.2018.108] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/30/2018] [Accepted: 10/31/2018] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Patient engagement practices are increasingly incorporated in health research, governance, and care. More recently, a large number of evaluation tools and metrics have been developed to support engagement evaluation. This growing interest in evaluation reflects a maturation of the patient engagement field, moving from a "craft" to a reflective "art and science," with more explicit expected benefits and risks, better understood conditions for success and failure, and increasingly rigorous evaluation instruments to improve engagement theories and interventions. It also supports a more critical view of engagement science, moving beyond reductionist views of engagement as a "black box technology" to a more subtle view of this broad category of complex interventions. Structured evaluation can advance patient engagement by supporting more reflective partnerships between patients, clinicians, health system leaders and citizens. This can help clarify mutual (and potentially contradictory) expectations toward engagement, provide a reality check toward claims of benefits and harms, and increase health systems’ capacity to implement effective engagement practices over time. To do so, closer collaborations are required between engagement scientists and practitioners to align the theories, practice and evaluation of patient and community engagement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Antoine Boivin
- Center of Excellence on Partnership with Patients and the Public, University of Montreal Hospital Research Center (CRCHUM), Montreal, QC, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Connors E, Selove R, Canedo J, Sanderson M, Hull P, Adams M, McDermott I, Barlow C, Johns-Porter D, McAfee C, Gilliam K, Miller O, Cox N, Fadden MK, King S, Tindle H. Improving Community Advisory Board Engagement in Precision Medicine Research to Reduce Health Disparities. JOURNAL OF HEALTH DISPARITIES RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 2019; 12:80-94. [PMID: 32832256 PMCID: PMC7442965] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
Community Advisory Boards (CABs) are used in efforts to reduce health disparities; however, there is little documentation in the literature regarding their use in precision medicine research. In this case study, an academic-CAB partnership developed a questionnaire and patient educational materials for two precision smoking cessation interventions that involved use of genetic or genetically-informed information. The community-engaged research (CEnR) literature provided a framework for enhancing benefits to CAB members involved in developing research documents for use with a low-income, ethnically diverse population of smokers.The academic partners integrated three CEnR strategies: 1) in-meeting statements acknowledging their desire to learn from community partners, 2) in-meeting written feedback to and from community partners, and 3) a survey to obtain CAB member feedback post-meetings. Strategies 1 and 2 yielded modifications to pertinent study materials, as well as suggestions for improving meeting operations that were then adopted, as appropriate, by the academic partners. The survey indicated that CAB members valued the meeting procedure changes which appeared to have contributed to improvements in attendance and satisfaction with the meetings. Further operationalization of relevant partnership constructs and development of tools for measuring these aspects of community-academic partnerships is warranted to support community engagement in precision medicine research studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - Marilyn Adams
- Meharry-Vanderbilt-TSU Cancer Partnership (MVTCP) Community Advisory Board
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
35
|
LePoire E, Basu B, Walker L, Bowen DJ. What do people think about genetics? A systematic review. J Community Genet 2018; 10:171-187. [PMID: 30406598 DOI: 10.1007/s12687-018-0394-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/16/2018] [Accepted: 10/23/2018] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Genetics is increasingly becoming a part of modern medical practice. How people think about genetics' use in medicine and their daily lives is therefore essential. Earlier studies indicated mixed attitudes about genetics. However, this might be changing. Using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) as a guideline, we initially reviewed 442 articles that looked at awareness, attitudes, knowledge, and perception of risks among the general and targeted recruitment populations. After fitting our criteria (from the last 5 years, conducted in the USA, non-provider populations, quantitative results reported, and assessed participants 18 years and older), finally 51 eligible articles were thematically coded and presented in this paper. Awareness is reported as relatively high in the studies reviewed. Attitudes are mixed but with higher proportions reporting positive attitudes towards genetic testing and counseling. Self-reported knowledge is reasonably high, specifically with the effects of specific programs developed to raise knowledge levels of the general and targeted recruited populations. Perception of risk is somewhat aligned with actual risk. With the reasonable positive reports of genetic awareness and knowledge, there is similar positive attitude and perception of risk, supporting the need for continued dissemination of such knowledge. Given interest in incorporating community participation in genomic educational strategies, we provide this review as a baseline from which to launch community-specific educational supports and tools.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erin LePoire
- University of Washington, Box 357120, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA
| | - Baishakhi Basu
- University of Washington, Box 357120, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA
| | - Lorelei Walker
- Health Equity Circle, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA
| | - Deborah J Bowen
- University of Washington, Box 357120, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Day S, Blumberg M, Vu T, Zhao Y, Rennie S, Tucker JD. Stakeholder engagement to inform HIV clinical trials: a systematic review of the evidence. J Int AIDS Soc 2018; 21 Suppl 7:e25174. [PMID: 30334358 PMCID: PMC6192899 DOI: 10.1002/jia2.25174] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2018] [Accepted: 07/20/2018] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Stakeholder engagement is an essential component of HIV clinical trials. We define stakeholder engagement as an input by individuals or groups with an interest in HIV clinical trials to inform the design or conduct of said trials. Despite its value, stakeholder engagement to inform HIV clinical trials has not been rigorously examined. The purpose of our systematic review is to examine stakeholder engagement for HIV clinical trials and compare it to the recommendations of the UNAIDS/AVAC Good Participatory Practice (GPP) guidelines. METHODS We used the PRISMA checklist and identified English language studies describing stakeholder engagement to inform HIV clinical trials. Four databases (PubMed, Ovid, CINAHL and Web of Science) and six journals were searched, with additional studies identified using handsearching and expert input. Two independent reviewers examined citations, abstracts and full texts. Data were extracted on country, engagement methods, stakeholder types and purpose of stakeholder engagement. Based on the GPP guidelines, we examined how frequently stakeholder engagement was conducted to inform clinical trial research question development, protocol development, recruitment, enrolment, follow-up, results and dissemination. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Of the 917 citations identified, 108 studies were included in the analysis. Forty-eight studies (44.4%) described stakeholder engagement in high-income countries, thirty (27.8%) in middle-income countries and nine (8.3%) in low-income countries. Fourteen methods for stakeholder engagement were identified, including individual (e.g. interviews) and group (e.g. community advisory boards) strategies. Thirty-five types of stakeholders were engaged, with approximately half of the studies (60; 55.6%) engaging HIV-affected community stakeholders (e.g. people living with HIV, at-risk or related populations of interest). We observed greater frequency of stakeholder engagement to inform protocol development (49 studies; 45.4%) and trial recruitment (47 studies; 43.5%). Fewer studies described stakeholder engagement to inform post-trial processes related to trial results (3; 2.8%) and dissemination (11; 10.2%). CONCLUSIONS Our findings identify important directions for future stakeholder engagement research and suggestions for policy. Most notably, we found that stakeholder engagement was more frequently conducted to inform early stages of HIV clinical trials compared to later stages. In order to meet recommendations established in the GPP guidelines, greater stakeholder engagement across all clinical trial stages is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Suzanne Day
- Institute for Global Health and Infectious DiseasesUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillNCUSA
| | - Meredith Blumberg
- Institute for Global Health and Infectious DiseasesUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillNCUSA
| | - Thi Vu
- Institute for Global Health and Infectious DiseasesUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillNCUSA
| | - Yang Zhao
- University of North Carolina – Project ChinaGuangzhouChina
| | - Stuart Rennie
- Department of Social MedicineUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillNCUSA
- Center for BioethicsUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillNCUSA
| | - Joseph D. Tucker
- Institute for Global Health and Infectious DiseasesUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillNCUSA
- University of North Carolina – Project ChinaGuangzhouChina
- School of MedicineUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillNCUSA
- Faculty of Infectious DiseasesLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineLondonUK
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Boivin A, L'Espérance A, Gauvin FP, Dumez V, Macaulay AC, Lehoux P, Abelson J. Patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making: A systematic review of evaluation tools. Health Expect 2018; 21:1075-1084. [PMID: 30062858 PMCID: PMC6250878 DOI: 10.1111/hex.12804] [Citation(s) in RCA: 132] [Impact Index Per Article: 22.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/21/2018] [Indexed: 01/24/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patient and public engagement is growing, but evaluative efforts remain limited. Reviews looking at evaluation tools for patient engagement in individual decision making do exist, but no similar articles in research and health systems have been published. OBJECTIVE Systematically review and appraise evaluation tools for patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making. METHODS We searched literature published between January 1980 and February 2016. Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL and PsycINFO) were consulted, as well as grey literature obtained through Google, subject-matter experts, social media and engagement organization websites. Two independent reviewers appraised the evaluation tools based on 4 assessment criteria: scientific rigour, patient and public perspective, comprehensiveness and usability. RESULTS In total, 10 663 unique references were identified, 27 were included. Most of these tools were developed in the last decade and were designed to support improvement of engagement activities. Only 11% of tools were explicitly based on a literature review, and just 7% were tested for reliability. Patients and members of the public were involved in designing 56% of the tools, mainly in the piloting stage, and 18.5% of tools were designed to report evaluation results to patients and the public. CONCLUSION A growing number of evaluation tools are available to support patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making. However, the scientific rigour with which such evaluation tools are developed could be improved, as well as the level of patient and public engagement in their design and reporting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Antoine Boivin
- University of Montreal Hospital Research Center (CRCHUM), Montreal, QC, Canada.,Department of family medicine, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada.,Center of Excellence on Partnership with Patients and the Public (CEPPP), Montreal, QC, Canada.,Department of health management, evaluation and policy, Ecole de santé publique de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Audrey L'Espérance
- Center of Excellence on Partnership with Patients and the Public (CEPPP), Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - François-Pierre Gauvin
- Center of Excellence on Partnership with Patients and the Public (CEPPP), Montreal, QC, Canada.,McMaster Health Forum, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Vincent Dumez
- Center of Excellence on Partnership with Patients and the Public (CEPPP), Montreal, QC, Canada.,Direction Collaboration et Partenariat Patient, Faculté de Médecine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Ann C Macaulay
- Participatory Research at McGill, Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Pascale Lehoux
- Department of health management, evaluation and policy, Ecole de santé publique de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Julia Abelson
- Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Staunton C, Tindana P, Hendricks M, Moodley K. Rules of engagement: perspectives on stakeholder engagement for genomic biobanking research in South Africa. BMC Med Ethics 2018; 19:13. [PMID: 29482536 PMCID: PMC5828421 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-018-0252-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2017] [Accepted: 02/19/2018] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Genomic biobanking research is undergoing exponential growth in Africa raising a host of legal, ethical and social issues. Given the scientific complexity associated with genomics, there is a growing recognition globally of the importance of science translation and community engagement (CE) for this type of research, as it creates the potential to build relationships, increase trust, improve consent processes and empower local communities. Despite this level of recognition, there is a lack of empirical evidence of the practise and processes for effective CE in genomic biobanking in Africa. METHODS To begin to address this vacuum, 17 in-depth face to face interviews were conducted with South African experts in genomic biobanking research and CE to provide insight into the process, benefits and challenges of CE in South Africa. Emerging themes were analysed using a contextualised thematic approach. RESULTS Several themes emerged concerning the conduct of CE in genomic biobanking research in Africa. Although the literature tends to focus on the local community in CE, respondents in this study described three different layers of stakeholder engagement: community level, peer level and high level. Community level engagement includes potential participants, community advisory boards (CAB) and field workers; peer level engagement includes researchers, biobankers and scientists, while high level engagement includes government officials, funders and policy makers. Although education of each stakeholder layer is important, education of the community layer can be most challenging, due to the complexity of the research and educational levels of stakeholders in this layer. CONCLUSION CE is time-consuming and often requires an interdisciplinary research team approach. However careful planning of the engagement strategy, including an understanding of the differing layers of stakeholder engagement, and the specific educational needs at each layer, can help in the development of a relationship based on trust between the research team and various stakeholder groups. Since the community layer often comprises vulnerable populations in low and middle income countries (LMICs), co-development of innovative educational tools on genomic biobanking is essential. CE is clearly a component of a broader process best described as stakeholder engagement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ciara Staunton
- Department of Medicine, Centre for Medical Ethics and Law, Faculty of Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa
| | - Paulina Tindana
- Navrongo Health Research Centre, Ghana Health Service, Navrongo, Ghana
| | - Melany Hendricks
- Department of Medicine, Centre for Medical Ethics and Law, Faculty of Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa
| | - Keymanthri Moodley
- Department of Medicine, Centre for Medical Ethics and Law, Faculty of Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa
| |
Collapse
|