American Institutes for Research (AIR), Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Vector Psychometric Group, LLC, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
J Gen Intern Med. 2022 Apr;37(Suppl 1):6-13. doi: 10.1007/s11606-021-07104-w. Epub 2022 Mar 29.
Engaging patients and other stakeholders as partners in research offers promise in improving the relevance and usefulness of research findings.
To explore the influence and impact of patient and other stakeholder engagement on the planning and conduct of comparative effectiveness research studies.
Qualitative study with virtual, hour-long semi-structured interviews.
Fifty-eight researchers and fifty-one partners from a diverse purposeful sample of fifty-eight studies funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).
Content and thematic analysis of interview data.
Described as an integral, long-term part of the research process, engagement influenced all aspects of the design and execution of studies. Partner influence was also dynamic and iterative, taking different forms over the course of the study. Across studies, we identified 387 discrete examples of influence and classified each as one of five types of influence, derived inductively from the interview data: co-producing, redirecting, refining, confirming, and limited. Most projects exhibited multiple types of influence, with 50 researchers and 41 partners reporting two or more types of influence within a project. Of the 387 examples of stakeholder influence, 306 had at least one reported impact on the study. Such impacts included changes to reflect the needs and preferences of patients or clinicians, as well as impacts on study feasibility, study quality, engagement scope or quality, and study relevance. Both researchers and partners identified multiple types of impact within projects, with 42 researchers and 38 partners reporting two or more types within a project. Because of these observable impacts, researchers and partners described engagement as worthwhile.
Findings provide insights for funders and institutions supporting engagement, measurement efforts, and clinical researchers aiming to conduct engaged research and observe similar influences and impacts in their own studies.
让患者和其他利益相关者作为研究伙伴参与其中,有望提高研究结果的相关性和实用性。
探讨患者和其他利益相关者参与对比较效果研究规划和实施的影响和作用。
具有虚拟、长达一小时的半结构化访谈的定性研究。
来自患者为中心的结局研究学会(PCORI)资助的 58 项研究中具有不同目的的、多样化的 58 名研究人员和 51 名伙伴。
对访谈数据进行内容和主题分析。
参与者将参与描述为研究过程的一个组成部分和长期部分,其影响了研究设计和执行的所有方面。伙伴的影响也是动态和迭代的,在研究过程中呈现出不同的形式。在所有研究中,我们确定了 387 个离散的影响实例,并从访谈数据中归纳出五种影响类型,分别为共同制定、重新引导、精炼、确认和有限。大多数项目表现出多种类型的影响,50 名研究人员和 41 名伙伴在一个项目中报告了两种或更多种类型的影响。在 387 个利益相关者影响实例中,有 306 个至少对研究产生了一种影响。这些影响包括改变以反映患者或临床医生的需求和偏好,以及对研究可行性、研究质量、参与范围或质量、研究相关性的影响。研究人员和伙伴都在项目中确定了多种类型的影响,42 名研究人员和 38 名伙伴在一个项目中报告了两种或更多种类型的影响。由于这些可观察到的影响,研究人员和伙伴认为参与是值得的。
这些发现为支持参与、衡量努力的资助者和机构,以及旨在进行参与性研究并在自己的研究中观察到类似影响和作用的临床研究人员提供了见解。