Stakeholder engagement in eight comparative effectiveness trials in African Americans and Latinos with asthma.
Asthma research
Comparative effectiveness research
Patient-oriented research
Stakeholder engagement
Journal
Research involvement and engagement
ISSN: 2056-7529
Titre abrégé: Res Involv Engagem
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101708164
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Nov 2022
24 Nov 2022
Historique:
received:
21
06
2022
accepted:
04
11
2022
entrez:
26
11
2022
pubmed:
27
11
2022
medline:
27
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The effects of stakeholder engagement, particularly in comparative effectiveness trials, have not been widely reported. In 2014, eight comparative effectiveness studies targeting African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos with uncontrolled asthma were funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) as part of its Addressing Disparities Program. Awardees were required to meaningfully involve patients and other stakeholders. Using specific examples, we describe how these stakeholders substantially changed the research protocols and in other ways participated meaningfully as full partners in the development and conduct of the eight studies. Using the method content analysis of cases, we identified themes regarding the types of stakeholders, methods of engagement, input from the stakeholders, changes made to the research protocols and processes, and perceived benefits and challenges of the engagement process. We used summaries from meetings of the eight teams, results from an engagement survey, and the final research reports as our data source to obtain detailed information. The descriptive data were assessed by multiple reviewers using inductive and deductive qualitative methods and discussed in the context of engagement literature. Stakeholders participated in the planning, conduct, and dissemination phases of all eight asthma studies. All the studies included clinicians and community representatives as stakeholders. Other stakeholders included patients with asthma, their caregivers, advocacy organizations, and health-system representatives. Engagement was primarily by participation in advisory boards, although six of the eight studies (75%) also utilized focus groups and one-on-one interviews. Difficulty finding a time and location to meet was the most reported challenge to engagement, noted by four of the eight teams (50%). Other reported challenges and barriers to engagement included recruitment of stakeholders, varying levels of enthusiasm among stakeholders, controlling power dynamics, and ensuring that stakeholder involvement was reflected and had true influence on the project. Engagement-driven modifications led to specific changes in study design and conduct that were felt to have increased enrollment and the general level of trust and support of the targeted communities. The level of interaction described, between investigators and stakeholders in each study and between investigator-stakeholder groups, is-we believe-unprecedented and may provide useful guidance for other studies seeking to improve the effectiveness of community-driven research. The goal of comparative clinical effectiveness research is to compare healthcare options and learn which work best for patients depending on their preferences and circumstances. Research efforts can be more effective when researchers engage stakeholders, such as patients, healthcare providers, and other members of the community—especially those communities or groups targeted by the planned research. Stakeholders can give their input throughout the research process to make sure the study will address questions and concerns that are most important and useful for participants. In 2014, the PCORI funded eight research studies that evaluated various ways to help African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos with poorly controlled asthma. These groups are underrepresented in asthma research but have higher rates of and more severe asthma for reasons that are poorly understood. The goal of this report is to show how stakeholders—including patients with asthma from these underrepresented groups, healthcare providers who care for patients with asthma, key representatives from the communities and others—participated as full partners in the eight studies and helped to improve the overall quality of the research and the relationship between the researchers and the community.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The effects of stakeholder engagement, particularly in comparative effectiveness trials, have not been widely reported. In 2014, eight comparative effectiveness studies targeting African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos with uncontrolled asthma were funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) as part of its Addressing Disparities Program. Awardees were required to meaningfully involve patients and other stakeholders. Using specific examples, we describe how these stakeholders substantially changed the research protocols and in other ways participated meaningfully as full partners in the development and conduct of the eight studies.
METHODS
METHODS
Using the method content analysis of cases, we identified themes regarding the types of stakeholders, methods of engagement, input from the stakeholders, changes made to the research protocols and processes, and perceived benefits and challenges of the engagement process. We used summaries from meetings of the eight teams, results from an engagement survey, and the final research reports as our data source to obtain detailed information. The descriptive data were assessed by multiple reviewers using inductive and deductive qualitative methods and discussed in the context of engagement literature.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Stakeholders participated in the planning, conduct, and dissemination phases of all eight asthma studies. All the studies included clinicians and community representatives as stakeholders. Other stakeholders included patients with asthma, their caregivers, advocacy organizations, and health-system representatives. Engagement was primarily by participation in advisory boards, although six of the eight studies (75%) also utilized focus groups and one-on-one interviews. Difficulty finding a time and location to meet was the most reported challenge to engagement, noted by four of the eight teams (50%). Other reported challenges and barriers to engagement included recruitment of stakeholders, varying levels of enthusiasm among stakeholders, controlling power dynamics, and ensuring that stakeholder involvement was reflected and had true influence on the project.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Engagement-driven modifications led to specific changes in study design and conduct that were felt to have increased enrollment and the general level of trust and support of the targeted communities. The level of interaction described, between investigators and stakeholders in each study and between investigator-stakeholder groups, is-we believe-unprecedented and may provide useful guidance for other studies seeking to improve the effectiveness of community-driven research.
The goal of comparative clinical effectiveness research is to compare healthcare options and learn which work best for patients depending on their preferences and circumstances. Research efforts can be more effective when researchers engage stakeholders, such as patients, healthcare providers, and other members of the community—especially those communities or groups targeted by the planned research. Stakeholders can give their input throughout the research process to make sure the study will address questions and concerns that are most important and useful for participants. In 2014, the PCORI funded eight research studies that evaluated various ways to help African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos with poorly controlled asthma. These groups are underrepresented in asthma research but have higher rates of and more severe asthma for reasons that are poorly understood. The goal of this report is to show how stakeholders—including patients with asthma from these underrepresented groups, healthcare providers who care for patients with asthma, key representatives from the communities and others—participated as full partners in the eight studies and helped to improve the overall quality of the research and the relationship between the researchers and the community.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
The goal of comparative clinical effectiveness research is to compare healthcare options and learn which work best for patients depending on their preferences and circumstances. Research efforts can be more effective when researchers engage stakeholders, such as patients, healthcare providers, and other members of the community—especially those communities or groups targeted by the planned research. Stakeholders can give their input throughout the research process to make sure the study will address questions and concerns that are most important and useful for participants. In 2014, the PCORI funded eight research studies that evaluated various ways to help African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos with poorly controlled asthma. These groups are underrepresented in asthma research but have higher rates of and more severe asthma for reasons that are poorly understood. The goal of this report is to show how stakeholders—including patients with asthma from these underrepresented groups, healthcare providers who care for patients with asthma, key representatives from the communities and others—participated as full partners in the eight studies and helped to improve the overall quality of the research and the relationship between the researchers and the community.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36434672
doi: 10.1186/s40900-022-00399-x
pii: 10.1186/s40900-022-00399-x
pmc: PMC9694541
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
63Subventions
Organisme : Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
ID : AS-1308-05876
Pays : United States
Organisme : Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
ID : AS-1307-05588
Pays : United States
Organisme : Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
ID : AS-1307-05498
Pays : United States
Organisme : Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
ID : AS-1307-05284
Pays : United States
Organisme : Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
ID : AS 1307-05218
Pays : United States
Organisme : Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
ID : AS-1307-05584
Pays : United States
Organisme : Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
ID : AS-1308-05887
Pays : United States
Organisme : Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
ID : AS-1307-05420
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIEHS NIH HHS
ID : P30 ES030285
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIEHS NIH HHS
ID : P30 ES013508
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Asthma. 2021 Jan;58(1):121-132
pubmed: 31545115
Health Aff (Millwood). 2016 Apr;35(4):590-4
pubmed: 27044956
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020 Jan;8(1):176-185.e2
pubmed: 31371165
J Comp Eff Res. 2012 Mar;1(2):181-194
pubmed: 22707880
J Gen Intern Med. 2016 Jan;31(1):13-21
pubmed: 26160480
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016 Dec;138(6):1600-1607
pubmed: 27789250
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016 Dec;138(6):1512-1517
pubmed: 27744029
Res Involv Engagem. 2021 Mar 30;7(1):19
pubmed: 33785074
Contemp Clin Trials. 2020 Apr;91:105977
pubmed: 32151753
J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Dec;29(12):1692-701
pubmed: 24893581
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019 Sep;144(3):846-853.e11
pubmed: 31181221
Contemp Clin Trials. 2017 Jun;57:10-22
pubmed: 28366780
Am J Public Health. 2014 Feb;104(2):e16-31
pubmed: 24328648
J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Aug;27(8):985-91
pubmed: 22528615
J Adv Nurs. 2008 Apr;62(1):107-15
pubmed: 18352969
J Comp Eff Res. 2016 Jan;5(1):17-30
pubmed: 26690579
Clin Transl Sci. 2013 Dec;6(6):493-6
pubmed: 24330697
J Community Psychol. 2019 Nov;47(8):1937-1951
pubmed: 31475370
J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Mar;34(3):458-463
pubmed: 30565151
Health Serv Res. 2012 Jun;47(3 Pt 2):1363-86
pubmed: 22353031
Res Involv Engagem. 2016 Mar 24;2:4
pubmed: 29062505
JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Aug 01;179(8):1113-1121
pubmed: 31180474
Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2021 Nov;55(6):1165-1179
pubmed: 34181236
Health Expect. 2019 Jun;22(3):307-316
pubmed: 30761699