Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Jan;31(1):13-21.
doi: 10.1007/s11606-015-3450-z. Epub 2015 Jul 10.

Patient and Stakeholder Engagement in the PCORI Pilot Projects: Description and Lessons Learned

Laura P Forsythe  1 , Lauren E Ellis  2 , Lauren Edmundson  3 , Raj Sabharwal  3 , Alison Rein  3 , Kristen Konopka  2 , Lori Frank  2
Affiliations

Patient and Stakeholder Engagement in the PCORI Pilot Projects: Description and Lessons Learned

Laura P Forsythe et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2016 Jan.

Abstract

Background: Patients and healthcare stakeholders are increasingly becoming engaged in the planning and conduct of biomedical research. However, limited research characterizes this process or its impact.

Objective: We aimed to characterize patient and stakeholder engagement in the 50 Pilot Projects funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), and identify early contributions and lessons learned.

Design: A self-report instrument was completed by researchers between 6 and 12 months following project initiation.

Participants: Forty-seven principal investigators or their designees (94 % response rate) participated in the study. MAIN MEASURES Self-report of types of stakeholders engaged, stages and levels of engagement, facilitators and barriers to engagement, lessons learned, and contributions from engagement were measured.

Key results: Most (83 %) reported engaging more than one stakeholder in their project. Among those, the most commonly reported groups were patients (90 %), clinicians (87 %), health system representatives (44 %), caregivers (41 %), and advocacy organizations (41 %). Stakeholders were commonly involved in topic solicitation, question development, study design, and data collection. Many projects engaged stakeholders in data analysis, results interpretation, and dissemination. Commonly reported contributions included changes to project methods, outcomes or goals; improvement of measurement tools; and interpretation of qualitative data. Investigators often identified communication and shared leadership strategies as "critically important" facilitators (53 and 44 % respectively); lack of stakeholder time was the most commonly reported challenge (46 %). Most challenges were only partially resolved. Early lessons learned included the importance of continuous and genuine partnerships, strategic selection of stakeholders, and accommodation of stakeholders' practical needs.

Conclusions: PCORI Pilot Projects investigators report engaging a variety of stakeholders across many stages of research, with specific changes to their research attributed to engagement. This study identifies early lessons and barriers that should be addressed to facilitate engagement. While this research suggests potential impact of stakeholder engagement, systematic characterization and evaluation of engagement at multiple stages of research is needed to build the evidence base.

Keywords: comparative effectiveness research (CER); patient engagement; patient-centered outcomes research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Types of stakeholders engaged in the PCORI pilot projects (among those projects who reported any engagement, n = 39).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Stages of the research project in which patients were engaged (among PCORI pilot project investigators reporting engagement of patients, n = 34).
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Facilitators of engaging patients and other stakeholders in research (among PCORI pilot projects reporting any engagement, n = 36).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Concannon TW, Fuster M, Saunders T, Patel K, Wong JB, Leslie LK, et al. A systematic review of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(12):1692–701. doi: 10.1007/s11606-014-2878-x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Deverka PA, Lavallee DC, Desai PJ, Esmail LC, Ramsey SD, Veenstra DL, et al. Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement. J Comp Eff Res. 2012;1(2):181–94. doi: 10.2217/cer.12.7. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shippee ND, Domecq Garces JP, Prutsky Lopez GJ, Wang Z, Elraiyah TA, Nabhan M, et al. Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework. Health Expect. 2013. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). The PCORI Methodology Report. 2013. Available at: http://www.pcori.org/assets/2013/11/PCORI-Methodology-Report.pdf Accessed June 9, 2015.
    1. Mullins CD, Abdulhalim AM, Lavallee DC. Continuous patient engagement in comparative effectiveness research. JAMA. 2012;307(15):1587–8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.442. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources