A New Taxonomy for Stakeholder Engagement in Patient-Centered Outcomes Research

Despite widespread agreement that stakeholder engagement is needed in patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR), no taxonomy exists to guide researchers and policy makers on how to address this need. We followed an iterative process, including several stages of stakeholder review, to address three questions: (1) Who are the stakeholders in PCOR? (2) What roles and responsibilities can stakeholders have in PCOR? (3) How can researchers start engaging stakeholders? We introduce a flexible taxonomy called the 7Ps of Stakeholder Engagement and Six Stages of Research for identifying stakeholders and developing engagement strategies across the full spectrum of research activities. The path toward engagement will not be uniform across every research program, but this taxonomy offers a common starting point and a flexible approach.

[1]  P. Rothwell.  Subgroup analysis in randomised controlled trials: importance, indications, and interpretation , 2005, The Lancet.

[2]  Francis S Collins,et al.  Using science to improve the nation's health system: NIH's commitment to comparative effectiveness research. , 2010, JAMA.

[3]  P. Schaefer,et al.  Comparative Effectiveness Research , 2014, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[4]  R. Grol.  Improving the quality of medical care: building bridges among professional pride, payer profit, and patient satisfaction. , 2001, JAMA.

[5]  J. Benner,et al.  An evaluation of recent federal spending on comparative effectiveness research: priorities, gaps, and next steps. , 2010, Health affairs.

[6]  Harry P. Selker,et al.  Tufts CTSI: , 2010, Clinical and translational science.

[7]  D. Stryer,et al.  Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. , 2003, JAMA.

[8]  A. Yancey,et al.  Effective recruitment and retention of minority research participants. , 2006, Annual review of public health.

[9]  J. Higgins,et al.  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration , 2013 .

[10]  B. Roehr.  More stakeholder engagement is needed to improve quality of research, say US experts , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[11]  S. Gutnikov,et al.  From subgroups to individuals: general principles and the example of carotid endarterectomy , 2005, The Lancet.

[12]  M. Trinity,et al.  Roundtable on Expanding Capacity for Comparative Effectiveness Research in the United States , 2009 .

[13]  Phyllis N Butow,et al.  Clinical trials in children , 2004, The Lancet.

[14]  Meredith Minkler,et al.  Community-Based Participatory Research for Health , 2002 .

[15]  Jerry A Krishnan,et al.  Acting on comparative effectiveness research in COPD. , 2010, JAMA.

[16]  Evelyn P Whitlock,et al.  White Paper on CTSA Consortium Role in Facilitating Comparative Effectiveness Research , 2010, Clinical and translational science.

[17]  P. Lindenauer,et al.  Association of corticosteroid dose and route of administration with risk of treatment failure in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. , 2010, JAMA.

[18]  K. Facey,et al.  Patients' perspectives in health technology assessment: A route to robust evidence and fair deliberation , 2010, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[19]  M. Zilberberg.  The Clinical Research Enterprise , 2011 .

[20]  K. Wells,et al.  Bridging community intervention and mental health services research. , 2004, The American journal of psychiatry.

[21]  C. Clancy,et al.  Charting a path from comparative effectiveness funding to improved patient-centered health care. , 2010, JAMA.

[22]  B. Israel,et al.  Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. , 1998, Annual review of public health.

[23]  J. Ware,et al.  Pragmatic trials--guides to better patient care? , 2011, The New England journal of medicine.

[24]  M. Zilberberg,et al.  The clinical research enterprise: time to change course? , 2011, JAMA.

[25]  Carolyn M Clancy,et al.  Getting to 'smart' health care. , 2006, Health affairs.

[26]  Bryan R Luce,et al.  Rethinking Randomized Clinical Trials for Comparative Effectiveness Research: The Need for Transformational Change , 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[27]  Kendall Gh.  Improving the quality of medical care. , 1989 .

[28]  H. Bastian,et al.  Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up? , 2010, PLoS medicine.

[29]  Marilyn J. Field,et al.  Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice , 2009 .

[30]  M. Naughton,et al.  Involving minority and underrepresented women in clinical trials: the National Centers of Excellence in Women's Health. , 2000, Journal of women's health & gender-based medicine.

[31]  Meredith Minkler,et al.  Community based participatory research: a promising approach for increasing epidemiology's relevance in the 21st century. , 2004, International journal of epidemiology.

[32]  S. Tunis,et al.  How best to engage patients, doctors, and other stakeholders in designing comparative effectiveness studies. , 2010, Health affairs.

[33]  Murray Krahn,et al.  The next step in guideline development: incorporating patient preferences. , 2008, JAMA.

[34]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[35]  Laura A. Levit,et al.  Finding what works in health care : standards for systematic reviews , 2011 .

[36]  David M Kent,et al.  Limitations of applying summary results of clinical trials to individual patients: the need for risk stratification. , 2007, JAMA.