Facilitating comparative effectiveness research in cancer genomics: evaluating stakeholder perceptions of the engagement process

被引:8
作者
Deverka, Patricia A. [1 ]
Lavallee, Danielle C. [1 ]
Desai, Priyanka J. [1 ]
Armstrong, Joanne [2 ]
Gorman, Mark [3 ]
Hole-Curry, Leah [4 ]
O'Leary, James [5 ]
Ruffner, B. W.
Watkins, John [6 ]
Veenstra, David L. [7 ]
Baker, Laurence H. [8 ]
Unger, Joseph M. [9 ]
Ramsey, Scott D. [9 ]
机构
[1] Ctr Med Technol Policy, Baltimore, MD 21202 USA
[2] Aetna, Sugar Land, TX 77478 USA
[3] Natl Coalit Canc Survivorship, Silver Spring, MD 20910 USA
[4] Washington State Hlth Care Author, Olympia, WA 98501 USA
[5] Genet Alliance, Washington, DC 20008 USA
[6] Premera Blue Cross, Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 USA
[7] Univ Washington, Sch Pharm, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[8] Univ Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 USA
[9] Univ Washington, Fred Hutchinson Canc Res Ctr, Seattle, WA 98109 USA
关键词
cancer genomics; comparative effectiveness research; evaluation; qualitative research; research prioritization; stakeholder engagement; stakeholders;
D O I
10.2217/CER.12.36
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Aims: The Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research in Cancer Genomics completed a 2-year stakeholder-guided process for the prioritization of genomic tests for comparative effectiveness research studies. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of engagement procedures in achieving project goals and to identify opportunities for future improvements. Materials & methods: The evaluation included an online questionnaire, one-on-one telephone interviews and facilitated discussion. Responses to the online questionnaire were tabulated for descriptive purposes, while transcripts from key informant interviews were analyzed using a directed content ana-lysis approach. Results: A total of 11 out of 13 stakeholders completed both the online questionnaire and interview process, while nine participated in the facilitated discussion. Eighty-nine percent of questionnaire items received overall ratings of agree or strongly agree; 11% of responses were rated as neutral with the exception of a single rating of disagreement with an item regarding the clarity of how stakeholder input was incorporated into project decisions. Recommendations for future improvement included developing standard recruitment practices, role descriptions and processes for improved communication with clinical and comparative effectiveness research investigators. Conclusions: Evaluation of the stakeholder engagement process provided constructive feedback for future improvements and should be routinely conducted to ensure maximal effectiveness of stakeholder involvement.
引用
收藏
页码:359 / 370
页数:12
相关论文
共 31 条
  • [1] Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes
    Abelson, J
    Forest, PG
    Eyles, J
    Smith, P
    Martin, E
    Gauvin, FP
    [J]. SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2003, 57 (02) : 239 - 251
  • [2] [Anonymous], 1995, FAIRNESS COMPETENCE
  • [3] [Anonymous], 2002, Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods
  • [4] [Anonymous], 2010, The PIRICOM study: A systematic review of the conceptualisation, measurement, impact and outcomes of patients and public involvement in health and social care research
  • [5] Barber R, 2011, HLTH EXPECT, DOI [10.1111/j.1369-7625.00660.x, DOI 10.1111/J.1369-7625.00660.X]
  • [6] Beierle TC, 2000, J POLICY ANAL MANAG, V19, P587, DOI 10.1002/1520-6688(200023)19:4<587::AID-PAM4>3.0.CO
  • [7] 2-Q
  • [8] Community-Based Participatory Research: Partnering With Communities for Effective and Sustainable Behavioral Health Interventions
    Bogart, Laura A.
    Uyeda, Kimberly
    [J]. HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY, 2009, 28 (04) : 391 - 393
  • [9] Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda
    Boote, J
    Telford, R
    Cooper, C
    [J]. HEALTH POLICY, 2002, 61 (02) : 213 - 236
  • [10] Burgess J., 2006, Science and Public Policy, V33, P713, DOI 10.3152/147154306781778551