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
[Preprint]. 2024 Aug 27:rs.3.rs-4790564.
doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4790564/v1.

CASCADE: A Community-Engaged Action Model for Generating Rapid, Patient-Engaged Decisions in Clinical Research

Bridgette L Kelleher  1
Affiliations

CASCADE: A Community-Engaged Action Model for Generating Rapid, Patient-Engaged Decisions in Clinical Research

Bridgette L Kelleher. Res Sq. .

Update in

Abstract

Background: Integrating patient and community input is essential to the relevance and impact of patient-focused research. However, specific techniques for generating patient and community-informed research decisions remain limited. Here, we describes a novel CASCADE method (Community-Engaged Approach for Scientific Collaborations and Decisions) that was developed and implemented to make actionable, patient-centered research decisions during a federally funded clinical trial.

Methods: The CASCADE approach includes 7 key pillars: (1) identifying a shared, specific, and actionable goal; (2) centering community input; (3) integrating both pre-registered statistical analyses and exploratory "quests"; (4) fixed-pace scheduling, supported by technology; (5) minimizing opportunities for cognitive biases typical to group decision making; (6) centering diversity experiences and perspectives, including those of individual patients; (7) making decisions that are community-relevant, rigorous, and feasible. Here, we implemented these pillars within a three-day CASCADE panel, attended by diverse members of a research project team that included community interest-holders. The goal of our panel was to identify ways to improve an algorithm for matching patients to specific types of telehealth programs within an active, federally funded clinical trial.

Results: The CASCADE panel was attended by 27 participants, including 5 community interest-holders. Data reviewed to generate hypotheses and make decisions included (1) pre-registered statistical analyses, (2) results of 12 "quests" that were launched during the panel to answer specific panelist questions via exploratory analyses or literature review, (3) qualitative and quantitative patient input, and (4) team member input, including by staff who represented the target patient population for the clinical trial. Panel procedures resulted in the generation of 18 initial and 12 final hypotheses, which were translated to 19 decisional changes.

Conclusions: The CASCADE approach was an effective procedure for rapidly, efficiently making patient-centered decisions during an ongoing, federally funded clinical trial. Opportunities for further development will include exploring best-practice structural procedures, enhancing greater opportunities for pre-panel input by community interest-holders, and determining how to best standardize CASCADE outputs.

Trial registration: The CASCADE procedure was developed in the context of NCT05999448.

Keywords: CASCADE; Community-based participatory research; Delphi panel; Project WellCAST; clinical trials; decision making; patient acceptability; patient engagement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Sample shared note-taking document used to document CASCADE in real time.
Figure 2
Figure 2
CASCADE three-day itinerary and key outputs
Figure 3
Figure 3
Observed CASCADE Schedule for Project WellCAST Panel (July 2024)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Green LW, Mercer SL. Can Public Health Researchers and Agencies Reconcile the Push from Funding Bodies and the Pull from Committees? Community-Based Participatory Res. 2001;91(12):1926–8. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Harrington RL, Hanna ML, Oehrlein EM, Camp R, Wheeler R, Cooblall C, et al. Defining Patient Engagement in Research: Results of a Systematic Review and Analysis: Report of the ISPOR Patient-Centered Special Interest Group. Value Health. 2020;23(6):677–88. - PubMed
    1. Sharma AE, Knox M, Mleczko VL, Olayiwola JN. The impact of patient advisors on healthcare outcomes: A systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Strauss RP, Sengupta S, Quinn SC, Goeppinger J, Spaulding C, Kegeles SM, et al. The Role of Community Advisory Boards: Involving Communities in the Informed Consent Process. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(12):1938–43. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Graham KL, Green S, Kurlan R, Pelosi JS. A Patient-Led Educational Program on Tourette Syndrome: Impact and Implications for Patient-Centered Medical Education. Teach Learn Med [Internet]. 2014;26(1):34–9. 10.1080/10401334.2013.857339 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources