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
. 2022 Jun 29;26(2):28-39.
doi: 10.7812/TPP/21.091. Epub 2022 Jun 17.

Engaging Patient Advisory Committees to Inform a Genomic Cancer Risk Study: Lessons for Future Efforts

Affiliations

Engaging Patient Advisory Committees to Inform a Genomic Cancer Risk Study: Lessons for Future Efforts

Nangel M Lindberg et al. Perm J. .

Abstract

Introduction The Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many study seeks to reduce disparities in genomic care. Two patient advisory committees (PACs) were formed, 1 of English speakers and 1 of Spanish speakers, to vet study processes and materials. Stakeholder engagement in research is relatively new, and we know little about how stakeholders view their engagement. We wanted to learn how patient stakeholders viewed the process, to inform future patient engagement efforts. Methods Patients at 2 study sites were invited to serve on 2 PACs. We used an iterative engagement process to solicit and incorporate patient feedback. Much of the PAC feedback on study materials and processes was incorporated. Using surveys and exit interviews, we evaluated stakeholders' experiences as PAC members. Results Nearly all PAC members felt satisfied and included in the study decisions, but surveys and exit interviews suggested the need to improve communications. Discussion Although most believed their feedback was used, and most felt included in study decisions, some said they did not know whether their opinions were used to modify materials or approaches. This suggests the need to explain to patient stakeholders the extent to which their feedback was used and to inform them about the impact that other stakeholders, such as institutional review boards, have on decisions. Conclusion Our evaluation highlights the value of dedicating resources to stakeholder engagement. Although gathering patient feedback on study materials and processes introduced time constraints and complexity to our study, adaptations to materials and processes furthered study goals.

Keywords: Genomics; disparities; hereditary cancer; stakeholder engagement; underserved populations.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared

Figures

Figure 1:
Figure 1:
Figure 1 shows the process for obtaining PAC feedback about study materials. It shows the flow of CHARM study team activities and materials, as well as how materials were informed by input from the English-language and Spanish-language PACs. IRB = Institutional Review Board. PAC = Patient Advisory Committee.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Forsythe LP, Carman KL, Szydlowski V, et al. . Patient engagement In research: Early findings from the patient-centered outcomes research institute. Health Aff (Millwood). 2019;38(3):359–367. 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05067 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Concannon TW, Fuster M, Saunders T, et al. . A systematic review of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(12):1692–1701. 10.1007/s11606-014-2878-x - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kraft SA, Cho MK, Gillespie K, et al. . Beyond consent: Building trusting relationships with diverse populations in precision medicine research. Am J Bioeth. 2018;18(4):3–20. 10.1080/15265161.2018.1431322 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pickard AS, Lee TA, Solem CT, Joo MJ, Schumock GT, Krishnan JA. Prioritizing comparative-effectiveness research topics via stakeholder involvement: An application in COPD. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;90(6):888–892. 10.1038/clpt.2011.237 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Esmail LC, Roth J, Rangarao S, et al. . Getting our priorities straight: A novel framework for stakeholder-informed prioritization of cancer genomics research. Genet Med. 2013;15(2):115–122. 10.1038/gim.2012.103 - DOI - PMC - PubMed