Patients' early engagement in research proposal development (PEER-PD): Patients guiding the proposal writing
JournalJournal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
PublisherFuture Medicine Ltd.
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractPatient engagement often starts after research funding is secured with little or no involvement of patients in the proposal development phase. This paper compares three levels of patient engagement and describes patients' early engagement in research proposal development process and its contemporary relevance to clinical and translational research. Authentic patient engagement is illustrated using an example of an ongoing pragmatic clinical trial. The paper also addresses key patient considerations and questions that have an impact on the proposal development. The final section presents strategies to overcome challenges to the patients' early engagement in research proposal development approach from the perspectives of both patients and researchers. Although the examples are from comparative effectiveness research, strategies discussed can be applied to all clinical and translational research.
SponsorsThis project was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) (grant number R24HS022135) and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) (award number PCS-1403-12804).
Keywordclinical and translational research
comparative effectiveness research
Identifier to cite or link to this itemhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85064219468&doi=10.2217%2fcer-2018-0129&partnerID=40&md5=9bb36bf03e16131ee98ca5536f5c7f56; http://hdl.handle.net/10713/10710
- Researchers, Patients, and Stakeholders Evaluating Comparative-Effectiveness Research: A Mixed-Methods Study of the PCORI Reviewer Experience.
- Authors: Forsythe LP, Frank LB, Hemphill R, Tafari AT, Szydlowski V, Lauer M, Goertz C, Clauser S
- Issue date: 2018 Oct
- Go Slow to Go Fast: Successful Engagement Strategies for Patient-Centered, Multi-Site Research, Involving Academic and Community-Based Organizations.
- Authors: Pinsoneault LT, Connors ER, Jacobs EA, Broeckling J
- Issue date: 2019 Jan
- Using qualitative Health Research methods to improve patient and public involvement and engagement in research.
- Authors: Rolfe DE, Ramsden VR, Banner D, Graham ID
- Issue date: 2018
- Methods and impact of engagement in research, from theory to practice and back again: early findings from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
- Authors: Forsythe L, Heckert A, Margolis MK, Schrandt S, Frank L
- Issue date: 2018 Jan
- IMPACCT Kids' Care: a real-world example of stakeholder involvement in comparative effectiveness research.
- Authors: Likumahuwa-Ackman S, Angier H, Sumic A, Harding RL, Cottrell EK, Cohen DJ, Nelson CA, Burdick TE, Wallace LS, Gallia C, DeVoe JE
- Issue date: 2015 Aug
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
RE-CODE DCM (REsearch Objectives and Common Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy): A Consensus Process to Improve Research Efficiency in DCM, Through Establishment of a Standardized Dataset for Clinical Research and the Definition of the ResDavies, B.M.; Khan, D.Z.; Mowforth, O.D. (SAGE Publications Ltd, 2019)Study Design: Mixed-method consensus process. Objectives: Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a common and disabling condition that arises when mechanical stress damages the spinal cord as a result of degenerative changes in the surrounding spinal structures. RECODE-DCM (REsearch Objectives and Common Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy) aims to improve efficient use of health care resources within the field of DCM by using a multi-stakeholder partnership to define the DCM research priorities, to develop a minimum dataset for DCM clinical studies, and confirm a definition of DCM. Methods: This requires a multi-stakeholder partnership and multiple parallel consensus development processes. It will be conducted via 4 phases, adhering to the guidance set out by the COMET (Core Outcomes in Effectiveness Trials) and JLA (James Lind Alliance) initiatives. Phase 1 will consist of preliminary work to inform online Delphi processes (Phase 2) and a consensus meeting (Phase 3). Following the findings of the consensus meeting, a synthesis of relevant measurement instruments will be compiled and assessed as per the COSMIN (Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments) criteria, to allow recommendations to be made on how to measure agreed data points. Phase 4 will monitor and promote the use of eventual recommendations. Conclusions: RECODE-DCM sets out to establish for the first time an index term, minimum dataset, and research priorities together. Our aim is to reduce waste of health care resources in the future by using patient priorities to inform the scope of future DCM research activities. The consistent use of a standard dataset in DCM clinical studies, audit, and clinical surveillance will facilitate pooled analysis of future data and, ultimately, a deeper understanding of DCM. Copyright The Author(s) 2019.
Building a pipeline of community-engaged researchers: How interdisciplinary translational research training programs can collaborate with their Community Research Advisory CouncilsLaFave, Sarah E; Wallace, Duane J; Grover, Raneitra; Clark, Roger; Marks, Stacey; Lacanienta, Cyd; Evans, Crystal; Kalil, Graziela Z; Ouyang, Pamela; Himmelfarb, Cheryl R; et al. (Cambridge University Press, 2021-07-14)Community research advisory councils (C-RAC) bring together community members with interest in research to support design, evaluation, and dissemination of research in the communities they represent. There are few ways for early career researchers, such as TL1 trainees, to develop skills in community-engaged research, and there are limited opportunities for C-RAC members to influence early career researchers. In our novel training collaboration, TL1 trainees presented their research projects to C-RAC members who provided feedback. We present on initial evidence of student learning and summarize lessons learned that TL1 programs and C-RACs can incorporate into future collaborations.
Factors influencing retention of child welfare staff: a systematic review of research: a report from the Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research conducted in collaboration with University of Maryland School of Social Work Center for Families & Institute for Human Services PolicyZlotnik, Joan Levy; DePanfilis, Diane; Daining, Clara; McDermott Lane, Melissa; Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research (IASWR); Univerisity of Maryland, Baltimore. School of Social Work. Center for Families & Institute for Human Services Policy (2005-06)A systematic review of research and outcomes studies related to recruitment and retention in child welfare. Although there have been numerous literature reviews that report that there are organizational and personal factors that affect recruitment and retention, there has been no systematic review of research studies to more fully examine “what works” in regard to recruitment and retention in child welfare and to illuminate the specific methodology and definitions used to frame those studies. It is hoped that by synthesizing the results across studies, practitioners, researchers, educators, policy makers, and administrators in the child welfare field may use lessons learned to take steps to increase the retention of a competent child welfare workforce. (from Executive Summary)