Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement.

AIMS: Stakeholder engagement is fundamental to comparative effectiveness research (CER), but lacks consistent terminology. This paper aims to define stakeholder engagement and present a conceptual model for involving stakeholders in CER. MATERIALS #ENTITYSTARTX00026; METHODS: The definitions and model were developed from a literature search, expert input and experience with the Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research in Cancer Genomics, a proof-of-concept platform for stakeholder involvement in priority setting and CER study design. RESULTS: Definitions for stakeholder and stakeholder engagement reflect the target constituencies and their role in CER. The 'analytic-deliberative' conceptual model for stakeholder engagement illustrates the inputs, methods and outputs relevant to CER. The model differentiates methods at each stage of the project; depicts the relationship between components; and identifies outcome measures for evaluation of the process. CONCLUSION: While the definitions and model require testing before being broadly adopted, they are an important foundational step and will be useful for investigators, funders and stakeholder groups interested in contributing to CER.

[1]  Rosemary Barber,et al.  Can the impact of public involvement on research be evaluated? A mixed methods study , 2012, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[2]  Rahber Thariani,et al.  Prioritization in Comparative Effectiveness Research: The CANCERGEN Experience , 2012, Medical care.

[3]  J. Boote,et al.  Public involvement in the design and conduct of clinical trials: a narrative review of case examples , 2011, Trials.

[4]  J. Boote,et al.  Public involvement in the systematic review process in health and social care: a narrative review of case examples. , 2011, Health policy.

[5]  K. Lloyd,et al.  Democratizing clinical research , 2011, Nature.

[6]  Jeanne-Marie Guise,et al.  Engaging Stakeholders To Identify and Prioritize Future Research Needs , 2011 .

[7]  Josh J. Carlson,et al.  PCN9 VALUE OF RESEARCH ANALYSES IN RESEARCH PRIORITIZATION OF CANCER GENOMIC APPLICATIONS , 2011 .

[8]  H. Sox.  Comparative Effectiveness Research: A Progress Report , 2010, Annals of Internal Medicine.

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

[10]  Scott D Ramsey,et al.  A national cancer clinical trials system for the 21st century: reinvigorating the NCI Cooperative Group Program. , 2010, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[11]  Mark McClellan,et al.  Comparative effectiveness research: Policy context, methods development and research infrastructure , 2010, Statistics in medicine.

[12]  K. Cowan.  The James Lind Alliance: Tackling Treatment Uncertainties Together , 2010, The Journal of ambulatory care management.

[13]  F. Collins,et al.  Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: The Intersection of Science and Health Care , 2010, Science Translational Medicine.

[14]  G. Elwyn,et al.  Identifying and prioritizing uncertainties: patient and clinician engagement in the identification of research questions. , 2010, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[15]  C. Clancy,et al.  Comparative-effectiveness research--implications of the Federal Coordinating Council's report. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  Nathalie P. Jones,et al.  A Practical Guide for Engaging Stakeholders in Developing Evaluation Questions , 2009 .

[17]  S. Greenfield,et al.  Comparative Effectiveness Research: A Report From the Institute of Medicine , 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[18]  Patti Delger,et al.  Community-Based Participatory Research: A Review of the Literature With Strategies for Community Engagement , 2009, Journal of developmental and behavioral pediatrics : JDBP.

[19]  Stuart Peacock,et al.  Public participation in health care priority setting: A scoping review. , 2009, Health policy.

[20]  L. Bogart,et al.  Community-based participatory research: partnering with communities for effective and sustainable behavioral health interventions. , 2009, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[21]  K. Chalkidou,et al.  Comparative effectiveness research and evidence-based health policy: experience from four countries. , 2009, The Milbank quarterly.

[22]  Douglas K. Martin,et al.  Priority setting: what constitutes success? A conceptual framework for successful priority setting , 2009, BMC health services research.

[23]  Lucie Laurian,et al.  Evaluation of Public Participation , 2009 .

[24]  M. Reed.  Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review , 2008 .

[25]  H. Burton,et al.  Developing Stakeholder Involvement for Introducing Public Health Genomics into Public Policy , 2008, Public Health Genomics.

[26]  Ken Stein,et al.  A multidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services research , 2008, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[27]  Dwayne Van Eerd,et al.  Stakeholder engagement opportunities in systematic reviews: knowledge transfer for policy and practice. , 2008, The Journal of continuing education in the health professions.

[28]  Becky Skidmore,et al.  Priority setting for health technology assessments: A systematic review of current practical approaches , 2007, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[29]  P. Butow,et al.  Operationalising a model framework for consumer and community participation in health and medical research , 2007, Australia and New Zealand health policy.

[30]  Becky Skidmore,et al.  Priority setting for health technology assessments: A systematic review of current practical approaches , 2007, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[31]  Mita Giacomini,et al.  Bringing 'the public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: from principles to practice. , 2007, Health policy.

[32]  Kenneth Amaeshi,et al.  Stakeholder Engagement: A Mechanism for Sustainable Aviation , 2006 .

[33]  David Hailey,et al.  Survey on the involvement of consumers in health technology assessment programs , 2006, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[34]  Jacqueline E. W. Broerse,et al.  Stakeholder participation in health research agenda setting: the case of asthma and COPD research in the Netherlands , 2006 .

[35]  Rosemary Barber,et al.  Principles and indicators of successful consumer involvement in NHS research: results of a Delphi study and subgroup analysis. , 2006, Health policy.

[36]  Angela Oels.  Evaluating Stakeholder Dialogues , 2006 .

[37]  Esben Rahbek Gjerdrum Pedersen.  Making Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Operable: How Companies Translate Stakeholder Dialogue into Practice , 2005 .

[38]  G. Rowe,et al.  A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms , 2005 .

[39]  Barbara E. Solt.  The Role of Purchasers and Payers in the Clinical Research Enterprise: Workshop Summary Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2002. 120 pages. ISBN: 0-309-08349-4 $22.00 paperback , 2004 .

[40]  J. Eyles,et al.  Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. , 2003, Social science & medicine.

[41]  M. Jefford,et al.  Outcomes research: what is it and why does it matter? , 2003, Internal medicine journal.

[42]  J. Boote,et al.  Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda. , 2002, Health policy.

[43]  A. Korn,et al.  The Role of Other Stakeholders in the Clinical Research Enterprise , 2002 .

[44]  A. Korn,et al.  The Role of Purchasers in the Clinical Research Enterprise , 2002 .

[45]  Alexander Ommaya,et al.  The Role of Purchasers and Payers in the Clinical Research Enterprise , 2002 .

[46]  C. Williamson,et al.  What does involving consumers in research mean? , 2001, QJM : monthly journal of the Association of Physicians.

[47]  Kathleen E. Halvorsen,et al.  Assessing Public Participation Techniques for Comfort, Convenience, Satisfaction, and Deliberation , 2001, Environmental management.

[48]  T. Webler,et al.  What Is a Good Public Participation Process? Five Perspectives from the Public , 2001, Environmental management.

[49]  M Ryan,et al.  Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. , 2001, Health technology assessment.

[50]  T. Webler,et al.  Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation , 2000 .

[51]  David M. Konisky,et al.  Values, Conflict, and Trust in Participatory Environmental Planning , 2000 .

[52]  R. Brugha,et al.  Stakeholder analysis: a review. , 2000, Health policy and planning.

[53]  Ortwin Renn.  A Model for an Analytic−Deliberative Process in Risk Management , 1999 .

[54]  Martin Schweitzer,et al.  Measuring the success of public participation on environmental restoration and waste management activities in the U.S. Department of Energy , 1998 .

[55]  George E. Apostolakis,et al.  Deliberation: Integrating Analytical Results into Environmental Decisions Involving Multiple Stakeholders , 1998 .

[56]  James D. Fearon,et al.  Deliberative Democracy: Deliberation as Discussion , 1998 .

[57]  N. Daniels,et al.  Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. , 1997, Philosophy & public affairs.

[58]  M. Morris.  Understanding Risk - Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society , 1997 .