Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), Washington, DC, USA.
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), Washington, DC, USA.
Value Health. 2018 Oct;21(10):1161-1167. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.03.018. Epub 2018 Jun 12.
The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) includes patients and stakeholders alongside scientists in reviewing research applications using unique review criteria including patient-centeredness and patient and/or stakeholder engagement. To support extension of this unique collaborative model to other funders, information from the reviewers on the review process is needed to understand how scientists and nonscientists evaluate research proposals together. Thus, this study aimed to describe reviewers' perspectives of the interactions during the in-person review panel; to examine the value and challenges of including scientists, patients, and stakeholders together; and to understand the perceived importance of PCORI's review criteria.
This study utilized anonymous, cross-sectional surveys (N = 925 respondents from 5 funding cycles: 470 scientists, 217 patients, 238 stakeholders; survey completion rates by cycle: 70-89%) and group interviews (N = 18).
Reviewers of all types describe PCORI Merit Review as respectful, balanced, and one of reciprocal influence among different reviewer types. Reviewers indicate strong support and value of input from all reviewer types, receptivity to input from others, and the panel chair's incorporation of all views. Patients and stakeholders provide real-world perspectives on importance to patients, research partnership plans, and study feasibility. Challenges included concerns about a lack of technical expertise of patient/stakeholder reviewers and about scientists dominating conversations. The most important criterion for assigning final review scores was technical merit-either alone or in conjunction with patient-centeredness or patient/ stakeholder engagement.
PCORI Merit Reviewers' self-reports indicate that the perspectives of different reviewer types are influential in panel discussions and Merit Review outcomes.
患者中心的结局研究学会（PCORI）将患者和利益相关者与科学家一起纳入审查研究申请，使用独特的审查标准，包括以患者为中心以及患者和/或利益相关者的参与。为了支持将这种独特的合作模式扩展到其他资助者，需要了解科学家和非科学家如何共同评估研究提案，因此需要从审查者那里获得有关审查过程的信息。因此，本研究旨在描述审查者对现场审查小组互动的看法；检查共同纳入科学家、患者和利益相关者的价值和挑战；并了解 PCORI 审查标准的重要性。
本研究使用匿名的横断面调查（来自 5 个资助周期的 925 名受访者：470 名科学家、217 名患者、238 名利益相关者；每个周期的调查完成率：70-89%）和小组访谈（N = 18）。
所有类型的审查者都将 PCORI 卓越审查描述为尊重、平衡，并且是不同审查者类型之间相互影响的一种。审查者表示强烈支持并重视所有审查者类型的投入，对他人的投入持开放态度，以及小组主席对所有观点的采纳。患者和利益相关者提供了有关对患者的重要性、研究伙伴关系计划和研究可行性的真实观点。挑战包括对患者/利益相关者审查者缺乏技术专长以及对科学家主导对话的担忧。分配最终审查分数的最重要标准是技术优势——单独使用或与以患者为中心或患者/利益相关者参与结合使用。
PCORI 卓越审查者的自我报告表明，不同审查者类型的观点在小组讨论和卓越审查结果中具有影响力。
