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 May 12;7(1):e10313.
doi: 10.1002/lrh2.10313. eCollection 2023 Jan.

Stakeholder engagement infrastructure to support multicenter research networks: Advances from the clinical research networks participating in PCORnet

Elizabeth L Cope  1 , Kathleen M McTigue  2 , Christopher B Forrest  3 , Thomas W Carton  4 , Alecia M Fair  5 , Crispin Goytia  6 , Joseph M Harrington  7 , Susan Lowe  8 , J Greg Merritt  9 , Elizabeth A Shenkman  10 , William J Stephens  11 , Anna Templeton  12 , Neely A Williams  13 , Nadine Zemon  14 , Sarah Millender  1 , Rebekah S M Angove  15
Affiliations

Stakeholder engagement infrastructure to support multicenter research networks: Advances from the clinical research networks participating in PCORnet

Elizabeth L Cope et al. Learn Health Syst. .

Abstract

Background: The evidence based on the inclusion of patients and other stakeholders as partners in the clinical research process has grown substantially. However, little has been reported on how stakeholders are engaged in the governance of large-scale clinical research networks and the infrastructure used by research networks to support engagement in network-affiliated activities.

Objectives: The objective was to document engagement activities and practices emerging from Clinical Research Networks (CRNs) participating in PCORnet, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, specifically regarding governance and engagement infrastructure.

Methods: We conducted an environmental scan of PCORnet CRN engagement structures, assets, and services, focusing on network oversight structures for policy development and strategic decision-making. The scan included assets and services for supporting patient/stakeholder engagement. Data were collected by searching web-based literature and tool repositories, review of CRN Engagement Plans, analysis of previously collected key informant interviews, and CRN-based iterative review of structured worksheets.

Results: We identified 87 discrete engagement structures, assets, and services across nine CRNs. All CRNs engage patients/stakeholders in their governance, maintain workgroups and/or staff dedicated to overseeing engagement strategies, and offer one or more services to non-CRN researchers to enhance conducting engaged clinical research.

Conclusions: This work provides an important resource for the research community to explore engagement across peers, reflect on progress, consider opportunities to leverage existing infrastructure, and identify new collaborators. It also serves to highlight PCORnet as a resource for non-CRN researchers seeking to efficiently conduct engaged clinical research and a venue for advancing the science of engagement.

Keywords: clinical research networks; engagement; patient‐centeredness; stakeholder‐engaged research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

There are no potential conflicts of interest or corporate sponsors for this work.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Geographic distribution of patients represented in CRNs participating in PCORnet
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Flow chart of the document inclusion process for the engagement activity and practice scan
See this image and copyright information in PMC

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. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05067 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gesell SB, Klein KP, Halladay J, et al. Methods guiding stakeholder engagement in planning a pragmatic study on changing stroke systems of care. J Clin Transl Sci. 2017;1(2):121‐128. doi: 10.1017/cts.2016.26 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Edwards HA, Huang J, Jansky L, Mullins CD. What works when: mapping patient and stakeholder engagement methods along the ten‐step continuum framework. J Comp Eff Res. 2021;10:999‐1017. doi: 10.2217/cer-2021-0043 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Doria N, Condran B, Boulos L, Curtis Maillet DG, Dowling L, Levy A. Sharpening the focus: differentiating between focus groups for patient engagement vs qualitative research. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4:19. doi: 10.1186/s40900-018-0102-6 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sage L, Russo ML, Byers PH, et al. Setting a research agenda for vascular Ehlers‐Danlos syndrome using a patient and stakeholder engagement model. J Vasc Surg. 2020;72(4):1436‐1444.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2019.12.043 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources