Reaching Consensus on Principles of Stakeholder Engagement in Research

Diet and health inequalities: Connecting with vulnerable groups to address food insecurity-the DIO food project

The current cost-of-living crisis is disproportionately affecting families experiencing poverty and is likely to be amplifying existing dietary inequalities and challenges, such as food insecurity (FI). Government policies designed to address diet inequality in the UK have historically had minimal impact on population diet and health and may have even widened existing inequalities. Therefore, the effect of nutrition policies on those experiencing FI in the context of the current cost-of-living crisis needs to be better understood. The aim of the Diet and Health Inequalities (DIO Food) project is to work with early years, people living on a low income and retailers to generate opportune evidence-based research and commentary that will inform diet-related health inequalities policy and practice. DIO Food is related to the existing Food Insecurity in people living with Obesity (FIO Food) project, which consists of four interlinked work packages (WPs1-4). DIO Food consists of three interlinked work packages (WPs5-7), which enhance the scope of FIO Food, and are described in this article. WP5 addresses a paucity of research on maternal and infant food insecurity in the UK, by applying a qualitative research approach to capture parents' and carers' perceptions of the relationship between the food system and other influences impacting infant feeding practice, associated with the cost-of-living crisis. WP6 will conduct the first-ever cross-retailer independent evaluation of England's high fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) product placement legislation. Researchers will analyse store-level supermarket sales data provided by large UK retailers to produce sector-level insights into whether HFSS legislation reduced HFSS purchasing, improved the healthiness of retailer product portfolios, and was equitable across areas with different characteristics. WP7 will support WP5 and 6, by strengthening engagement with key stakeholders, including at-risk consumers and representatives of major supermarkets, and effectively translating research outcomes and stakeholder perspectives for policy and industry decision-makers.

Practitioner perspectives on equitable implementation of evidence-based interventions for cancer prevention and control

Longstanding inequities in cancer prevention and control require novel approaches to improve evidence-based intervention implementation. Exploring and elevating the perspectives of cancer prevention and control practitioners working to advance health equity and equitably implement evidence-based interventions is an important yet underutilized step among researchers working in this space. The purpose of this study was to explore practitioners' perspectives of how health equity is defined and integrated into their work, challenges of advancing health equity for implementation in local settings, and associated strategies. We conducted virtual key informant interviews and focus groups with 16 US practitioners (e.g. clinicians, health administrators, public health professionals) in 2021-2022. Interviews and focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed. Data were coded using inductive content analysis and summarized into themes. Four major themes emerged: (i) how health equity is conceptualized as a process and outcome; (ii) need to shift equity mindsets; (iii) importance of community partnerships; (iv) organizational policies and strategies for fostering equity in implementation. Respondents noted the need for research and medical communities to learn about the importance and benefits of allowing communities to shape implementation to advance equity in the delivery of evidence-based interventions and outcomes. Additionally, respondents emphasized that institutional leaders should initiate changes regarding equitable implementation at the organizational- and system-levels. Respondents endorsed the need to address equity issues related to the implementation of cancer prevention and control programs, practices, and policies. Many findings can be applied beyond cancer prevention and control to support equitable implementation and outcomes more generally.

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

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

Application of a Heuristic Framework for Multilevel Interventions to Eliminate the Impact of Unjust Social Processes and Other Harmful Social Determinants of Health

There is consensus about the importance of developing a strong cadre of effective multilevel interventions to eliminate the impacts of unjust social processes, such as structural racism and other harmful social determinants of health (SDOH), on health inequities in the USA. However, the available cadre of rigorously evaluated evidence-based interventions for SDOH mitigation remains underdeveloped relative to the magnitude of historic and current health inequities. The proposed manuscript addresses this gap in two ways: first, by introducing a heuristic framework to inform decisions in multilevel intervention development, study design, and selection of analytic methods and, second, by providing a roadmap for future applications of the framework in multilevel intervention research through an exemplar application using the ongoing NIH-funded evaluation study of the Nurse-Community-Family Partnership (NCFP) intervention. NCFP leverages individual, family, institutional, and system factors to shape COVID-19 mitigation outcomes at the individual and household levels. NCFP takes an approach informed by the heuristic framework to addressing and mitigating unjust social processes and other harmful SDOH. We discuss the application of a two-arm parallel explanatory group randomized trial to evaluate the efficacy of NCFP in improving the primary (COVID-19 testing uptake) and secondary (adoption of COVID-19 control measures, COVID-19 vaccine uptake, mutual aid capacity, etc.) outcomes at the individual and household levels. The analysis approach relies on random-intercept models, and we calculate the variance partitioning coefficient to estimate the extent to which household- and individual-level variables contribute to the outcome, allowing examination of NCFP effects at multiple levels.

Fostering citizen-engaged HIV implementation science

INTRODUCTION

Successful implementation of evidence-based practices depends on contextual factors like stakeholder engagement, the socio-political environment, resource availability, and stakeholders' felt needs and preferences. Nevertheless, inequities in implementation exist and undermine efforts to address HIV in marginalized key populations. Implementation science shows promise in addressing such inequities in the HIV response, but can be limited without meaningful engagement from citizens or communities.

DISCUSSION

We define the concept of a citizen-engaged HIV implementation science as one that involves citizens and communities deeply in HIV implementation science activities. In this commentary, we discuss how citizen science approaches can be leveraged to spur equity in HIV implementation science. Drawing on three areas previously defined by Geng and colleagues that serve to drive impactful implementation science in the HIV response, we discuss how citizens can be engaged when considering "whose perspectives?", "what questions are being asked?" and "how are questions asked?". With respect to "whose perspectives?" a citizen-engaged HIV implementation science would leverage participatory methods and tools, such as co-creation, co-production and crowdsourcing approaches, to engage the public in identifying challenges, solve health problems and implement solutions. In terms of "what questions are being asked?", we discuss how efforts are being made to synthesize citizen or community-led approaches with existing implementation science frameworks and approaches. This also means that we ensure communities have a say in interrogating and deconstructing such frameworks and adapting them to local contexts through participatory approaches. Finally, when considering "how are questions asked?", we argue for the development and adoption of broad, guiding principles and frameworks that account for dynamic contexts to promote citizen-engaged research in HIV implementation science. This also means avoiding narrow definitions that limit the creativity, innovation and ground-up wisdom of local citizens.

CONCLUSIONS

By involving communities and citizens in the development and growth of HIV implementation science, we can ensure that our implementation approaches remain equitable and committed to bridging divides and ending AIDS as a public health threat. Ultimately, efforts should be made to foster a citizen- and community-engaged HIV implementation science to spur equity in our global HIV response.

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

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

Patient engagement in designing, conducting, and disseminating clinical pain research: IMMPACT recommended considerations

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.

Integrating a Community Advisory Board Into a Pragmatic Trial of Mindfulness for Chronic Low Back Pain

Background

To improve the implementation of clinical trial interventions, there is a need to facilitate communication between key stakeholders and research teams. Community Advisory Boards (CAB) bring together a range of stakeholders not historically included in the research process to inform and work collaboratively with research teams.

Objective

To describe our procedures and processes for (1) integration of a CAB into a pragmatic clinical trial of a telehealth-delivered group mindfulness program for persons with chronic low back pain (cLBP) within primary care, and (2) for the rapid uptake and implementation of CAB recommendations.

Methods

The CAB we convened includes persons with cLBP who have undergone the mindfulness intervention, health care system leadership, advocacy groups, and mindfulness experts. The CAB members underwent a two hour initial training that introduced the research process and the CAB's role as research partners. The CAB met monthly for 1 hour. We used the Lighting Report method to summarize meetings and share feedback with the research team.

Results

The recommendations of the CAB during the first year they met were divided into recruitment, informed consent, and survey recommendations. The study website also was overhauled based on recommendations, including a more engaging first page with rotating images of nature and testimonials. The language on the website was edited to be more concise and participant-friendly. The CAB recommended talking points to discuss with participants during screening or informed consent about the benefits of participating in research.

Conclusion

We established a CAB that represented diverse perspectives, organizations, and experience with cLBP and mindfulness. The differing perspectives of the CAB resulted in recommendations that the research team itself would not have decided on their own. The Lightning Reports were also an effective way to efficiently communicate the CAB recommendations to the research team.

Organisational benefits of undertaking research in healthcare: an approach to uncover impact

There is increasing focus to review the societal impact of research through assessment and research excellence frameworks. These often link to financial and reputational incentives within the academic community. However, timeframes to demonstrate impact using these approaches are often long and are not designed to show benefit to service collaborators who require evidence of improvement and change to their services more immediately. Impacts that are measured this way may also miss out on unintended and positive impacts that occur as by-products of research, or through the 'ripple effect' that research may have on practice. Importantly, demonstrating how research makes a difference can improve the research culture in services, and motivations in service partners to become, and stay involved in research. This article describes, and provides access to, a tool called VICTOR (making Visible the ImpaCT Of Research) that was developed by a community of practice involving 12 NHS organisations through blending evidence from the literature, practice and service users. We describe the types of impact that have been collected by VICTOR and explore how collecting impact in this way might help research-practice partnerships and inform research methodologies and may be useful to show impacts alongside, and shortly after the research process.

Strategies for Improving Enrollment of Diverse Populations with a Focus on Lipid-Lowering Clinical Trials

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We review under-representation of key demographic groups in cardiovascular clinical trials, focusing on lipid-lowering trials. We outline multilevel strategies to recruit and retain diverse populations in cardiovascular trials.

RECENT FINDINGS

Barriers to participation in trials occur at the study, participant, health system, sponsor, and policy level, requiring a multilevel approach to effectively increase participation of under-represented groups in research. Increasing the representation of marginalized and under-represented groups in leadership positions in clinical trials can ensure that their perspectives and experiences are considered. Trial design should prioritize patient- and community-indicated needs. Women and individuals from racially/ethnically diverse populations remain under-represented in lipid-lowering and other cardiovascular clinical trials relative to their disease burden in the population. This limits the generalizability of trial results to the broader population in clinical practice. Collaboration between community stakeholders, researchers, and community members can facilitate shared learning about trials and build trust.

Competency Standard Derivation for Point-of-Care Ultrasound Image Interpretation for Emergency Physicians

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Because number-based standards are increasingly controversial, the objective of this study was to derive a performance-based competency standard for the image interpretation task of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS).

METHODS

This was a prospective study. Operating on a clinically-relevant sample of POCUS images, we adapted the Ebel standard-setting method to derive a performance benchmark in 4 diverse pediatric POCUS applications: soft tissue, lung, cardiac and focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST). In Phase I (difficulty calibration), cases were categorized into interpretation difficulty terciles (easy, intermediate, hard) using emergency physician-derived data. In Phase II (significance), a 4-person expert panel categorized cases as low, medium, or high clinical significance. In Phase III (standard setting), a 3x3 matrix was created, categorizing cases by difficulty and significance, and a 6-member panel determined acceptable accuracy for each of the 9 cells. An overall competency standard was derived from the weighted sum.

RESULTS

We obtained data from 379 emergency physicians resulting in 67,093 interpretations and a median of 184 (interquartile range, 154, 190) interpretations per case. There were 78 (19.5%) easy, 272 (68.0%) medium, and 50 (12.5%) hard-to-interpret cases, and 237 (59.3%) low, 65 (16.3%) medium, and 98 (24.5%) cases of high clinical significance across the 4 POCUS applications. The panel determined an overall performance-based competency score of 85.0% for lung, 89.5% for cardiac, 90.5% for soft tissue, and 92.7% for FAST.

CONCLUSION

This research provides a transparent chain of evidence that derived clinically relevant competency standards for POCUS image interpretation.

Evaluation of a stakeholder advisory board for an adolescent mental health randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Community engagement in research is widely accepted as best practice, despite gaps in existing frameworks to evaluate its process, context, and impact on research. The Screening in High Schools to Identify, Evaluate, and Lower Depression (SHIELD) study evaluated the use of a school-based major depressive disorder screening tool in the identification of symptoms and treatment initiation among adolescents, and was developed, implemented, and disseminated in partnership with a Stakeholder Advisory Board (SAB). We summarize outcomes of the evaluation strategy applied through our partnership with the SAB and explore gaps in the available engagement evaluation tools for mixed stakeholder populations including youth.

METHODS

SHIELD study SAB members (n = 13; adolescents, parents, mental health and primary care providers, and professionals from education and mental health organizations) advised on study design, implementation, and dissemination over a three-year period. Both SAB members and study team members (i.e., clinician researchers, project managers) were invited to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate stakeholder engagement after each project year. At the conclusion of the study, SAB members and study team members were asked to evaluate the application of engagement principles in overall stakeholder engagement across the study period, using portions of the Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST).

RESULTS

SAB members and study team members responded similarly when evaluating engagement process (i.e., valued on team, voice represented); means ranged from 3.9 to 4.8 out of 5 points across all three project years. Reported engagement within study-specific engagement activities (i.e., meetings, study newsletter) varied from year to year, with some discrepancy between SAB member and study team evaluations. Using REST, SAB members reported the alignment of their experience with key engagement principles the same or higher than study team members. Qualitative feedback at the conclusion of the study generally matched quantitative measures; adolescent SAB members, however, reported disengagement from stakeholder activities that was not accurately or effectively captured in evaluation strategies employed across the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Challenges exist in effectively engaging stakeholders and evaluating their engagement, particularly among heterogenous groups that include youth. Evaluation gaps should be addressed through the development of validated instruments that quantify the process, context, and impact of stakeholder engagement on study outcomes. Consideration should be given to collecting parallel feedback from stakeholders and study team members to fully understand the application and execution of engagement strategy.

Advancing multi-level health communication research: A Delphi study on barriers and opportunities

Adopting a multi-level perspective that considers the many interrelated contexts influencing health could make health communication interventions more effective and equitable. However, despite increasing interest in the use of multi-level approaches, multi-level health communication (MLHC) interventions are infrequently utilized. We therefore sought to conduct a modified Delphi study to better understand how researchers conceptualize MLHC interventions and identify opportunities for advancing MLHC work. Communication and health behavior experts were invited to complete two rounds of surveys about the characteristics, benefits, pitfalls, best practices, barriers, and facilitators of MLHC interventions; the role of technology in facilitating MLHC interventions; and ways to advance MLHC intervention research (46 experts completed the first survey, 44 completed both surveys). Survey data were analyzed using a mixed-methods approach. Panelists reached consensus on two components of the proposed definition of MLHC interventions and also put forward a set of best practices for these interventions. Panelists felt that most health intervention research could benefit from a multi-level approach, and generally agreed that MLHC approaches offered certain advantages over single-level approaches. However, they also expressed concern related to the time, cost, and complexity of MLHC interventions. Although panelists felt that technology could potentially support MLHC interventions, they also recognized the potential for technology to exacerbate disparities. Finally, panelists prioritized a set of methodological advances and practical supports that would be needed to facilitate future MLHC intervention research. The results of this study point to several future directions for the field, including advancing how interactions between levels are assessed, increasing the empirical evidence base demonstrating the advantages of MLHC interventions, and identifying best practices for the use of technology. The findings also suggest that researchers may need additional support to overcome the perceived practical challenges of conducting MLHC interventions.

Racial and ethnic disparities in communication study enrollment for young people with cancer: A descriptive analysis of the literature

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the racial and ethnic diversity of study participants in recent pediatric cancer communication literature.

METHODS

We systematically searched for communication studies in pediatric oncology published between January 2018 and September 2020, limiting analysis to US studies. We considered race and ethnicity as separate categories in our analysis. Two authors screened studies and abstracted characteristics of race and ethnicity reporting and enrollment.

RESULTS

Of 98 articles included in this analysis, many studies failed to report participants' race (21/98) and ethnicity (40/98). Most studies ascertained race and ethnicity by self-report (51/98); 25 studies did not describe how they ascertained race and ethnicity. White participants were overrepresented in studies relative to the US population (median 80% in studies vs 72% in 2020 US census). Racial and ethnic minorities were underrepresented (Black: 7% vs 14%; Asian: 4% vs 7%; Pacific Islander: 0% vs 0.5%; Native American: 0.5% vs 3%; Hispanic 8% vs 19%).

CONCLUSION

Communication literature in pediatric oncology underrepresents all racial and ethnic minority populations and is inconsistent in the reporting of race and ethnicity.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Future work should follow best practices to ensure this literature adequately represents the experiences of all families in pediatric oncology.

Reaching Consensus on Politicized Topics: A Convening of Public Health Professionals to Discuss Appropriate Abortion Activities for US Health Departments

CONTEXT

Public health professionals, particularly those in state and local health departments, do not always have clear understandings of their roles related to politically controversial public health topics. A process of consensus development among public health professionals that considers the best available evidence may be able to guide decision making and lay out an appropriate course of action.

APPROACH

In May 2020, a group of maternal and child health and family planning professionals working in health departments, representatives of schools of public health, and members of affiliated organizations convened to explore values and principles relevant to health departments' engagement in abortion and delineate activities related to abortion that are appropriate for health departments. The convening followed a structured consensus process that included multiple rounds of input and opportunities for feedback and revisions.

OUTCOMES

Convening participants came to consensus on principles to guide engagement in activities related to abortion, a set of activities related to abortion that are appropriate for health departments, and next steps to support implementation of such activities.

LESSONS LEARNED

The experience of the convening indicates that consensus processes can be feasible for politically controversial public health topics such as abortion.

Construct validation of the Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST)

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.

A Study Examining the Usefulness of a New Measure of Research Engagement

INTRODUCTION

Engagement of relevant stakeholders' ideas, opinions, and concerns is critical to the success of modern research projects. We have developed a tool to measure stakeholder engagement, called the Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST). The purpose of this paper is to present the implementation and uptake of the stakeholder engagement measure REST among research teams, including the assessment of barriers and facilitating factors for use of the new research engagement measure in practice.

METHODS

In this implementation study, project team members participated in baseline and follow-up web-based surveys. Web-based interviews were conducted with a subset of project teams that implemented the REST. On the baseline survey, project teams were asked to provide details about up to three ongoing or recently completed projects, were asked if they agreed with compensation for REST completion, and were asked if they would like to send the survey to stakeholders or would prefer our project team to email their project stakeholders. Follow-up surveys contained questions on reactions to implementing REST and results of REST.

RESULTS

Project team members/researchers who completed the baseline survey (n=86) were mostly female (79%) and Non-Hispanic/Latino(a) White (76%). Those who implemented REST were also mostly female (86%) and Non-Hispanic/Latino(a) White (71%), with an average of 11 years in academic research. About 98% of all participants completing the baseline survey had the capacity to survey partners, while 100% of all teams who implemented REST did. A small portion of respondents indicated the time commitment of REST would be a barrier (29% of baseline survey respondents, 10% of those who implemented REST) and indicated workload would be a barrier (31% of baseline survey respondents, 14% of those who implemented REST).

DISCUSSION

The data presented here indicate that REST implementation is feasible in a volunteer group of ongoing research projects.

Moving from consultation to co-creation with knowledge users in scoping reviews: guidance from the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group

ABSTRACT

Knowledge user consultation is often limited or omitted in the conduct of scoping reviews. Not including knowledge users within the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews could be due to a lack of guidance or understanding about what consultation requires and the subsequent benefits. Knowledge user engagement in evidence synthesis, including consultation approaches, has many associated benefits, including improved relevance of the research and better dissemination and implementation of research findings. Scoping reviews, however, have not been specifically focused on in terms of research into knowledge user consultation and evidence syntheses. In this paper, we will present JBI's guidance for knowledge user engagement in scoping reviews based on the expert opinion of the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group. We offer specific guidance on how this can occur and provide information regarding how to report and evaluate knowledge user engagement within scoping reviews. We believe that scoping review authors should embed knowledge user engagement into all scoping reviews and strive towards a co-creation model.

Applying Genetic and Genomic Tools to Psychiatric Disorders: A Scoping Review

Introduction

The bioethics literature reflects significant interest in and concern with the use of genetic and genomic information in various settings. Because psychiatric treatment and research raises unique ethical, legal, and social issues, we conducted a scoping review of the biomedical, bioethics, and psychology literature regarding the application of genetic and genomic tools to psychiatric disorders (as listed in the DSM-5) and two associated behaviors or symptoms to provide a more detailed overview of the state of the field.

Objectives

The primary objective was to examine the available bioethics, biomedical, and psychology literature on applying genetic and genomic tools to psychiatric disorders (other than neurodevelopmental disorders) and two behaviors or symptoms sometimes associated with them (aggression or violence and suicidality) to identify the disorders to which these tools have been applied, the contexts in or purposes for which they have been applied, the ethical, legal, or social concerns associated with those uses, and proposed recommendations for mitigating those concerns.

Methods

We used Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review framework: (1) identify the research question; (2) identify relevant studies; (3) select studies; (4) chart the data; and (5) collate, summarize, and report results (2005). We relied on Levac et al. to inform our application of the framework (2010). The PRISMA extension for scoping reviews checklist informed our reporting (2018). We searched three electronic databases MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and PsycInfo (EbscoHost) for peer-reviewed journal articles in English to identify relevant literature. One author screened the initial results and additional screening was done in consultation with other authors. A data extraction form using DSM-5 diagnostic categories (excluding neurodevelopmental disorders) was developed and two authors independently each reviewed approximately half of the articles. Inter-rater reliability was ensured by double-coding approximately 10% of the papers. An additional author independently coded 10% of the articles to audit the data.

Results

In 365 coded publications, we identified 15 DSM-5 diagnostic categories in addition to the two pre-selected behaviors or symptoms (aggression or violence and suicidality) to which genetic or genomic tools have been applied. We identified 11 settings in or purposes for which these tools were applied. Twenty-two types of ethical, legal, or social concerns associated with the application of genetic or genomic tools to these disorders or behaviors/symptoms were identified along with 13 practices or policies that could mitigate these concerns.

Conclusion

Genetic and genomic tools have been applied to a wide range of psychiatric disorders. These raise a range of ethical, legal, and social concerns. Additional research is warranted to better understand the concerns and effective ways to address them. Advancing the literature to identify relevant ethical, legal, or social concerns and solutions to those problems likely requires greater attention to specific applications of genetic or genomic tools to particular psychiatric disorders and associated behaviors/symptoms as well as broad stakeholder engagement.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10730-021-09465-5.

Development and Validation of a Brief Version of the Research Engagement Survey Tool

The Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST) examines the level of partner engagement in research studies. This study used mixed methods, including web-based surveys (N = 336), a modified Delphi process (N = 18), and cognitive response interviews (N = 16), with convenience sampling to develop and validate a short version of the REST. We conducted factor analysis and calculated internal consistency for the condensed REST. We validated the condensed REST against the comprehensive REST. All analyses were carried out on two scales (quality and quantity) based on Likert-type response options. We examined convergent validity with other measures theoretically associated with the REST (e.g., the Community Engagement Research Index and the Partnership Self-Assessment Tool). This study produced a 9-item condensed version of the REST. The condensed REST loads on 1 factor, has high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.92 for the quantity scale; 0.94 for the quality scale), is significantly correlated (ρ = 0.97; p < 0.001 for both scales) with the comprehensive (32-item) REST, and has negligible, low, and moderate correlation with other measures (e.g., the Partnership Assessment In community-based Research, trust in medical researchers, and the Coalition Self-Assessment Survey). Use of the condensed REST will reduce participant burden and time to complete. This standardized and validated quantitative measure is useful to compare engagement across projects or within a project over time.

Evaluating Stakeholder Engagement: Stakeholder-Centric Instrumentation Process (SCIP)

Evaluating engagement in a research partnership can capture the success and impact of the research team-stakeholder partnerships. This article describes the Stakeholder-Centric Instrumentation Process (SCIP), an iterative method to develop an evaluation that reflects research team-stakeholder collective values, language, and priorities. We describe our implementation of the SCIP and provide the Stakeholder-Centric Engagement Evaluation, an evaluation developed in collaboration with our advisory committee. Mean scores across three administrations of the tool remained constant. We monitored responses received from our advisory committee during each administration for changes in scores that guided refinements to our stakeholder engagement strategy. Face validity and acceptability questions showed high satisfaction for the tool's time required to complete, (M = 4.50, SD = 0.86), clarity (M = 4.56, SD = 0.78), and relevance (M = 4.67, SD = 0.49) (maximum score = 5). The SCIP methodology and the Stakeholder-Centric Engagement Tool can be used during study planning and data collection to capture research team-stakeholder collaborations that reflect stakeholder priorities.

Community partners' responses to items assessing stakeholder engagement: Cognitive response testing in measure development

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.