Department of Translational and Applied Genomics, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR, USA.
Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Hospital and Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Perm J. 2022 Jun 29;26(2):28-39. doi: 10.7812/TPP/21.091. Epub 2022 Jun 17.
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.
简介
癌症健康评估惠及多方研究旨在减少基因组护理方面的差异。成立了两个患者顾问委员会(PAC),一个由英语使用者组成,另一个由西班牙语使用者组成,以审查研究过程和材料。利益相关者参与研究相对较新,我们对利益相关者如何看待他们的参与了解甚少。我们希望了解患者利益相关者对这一过程的看法,以便为未来的患者参与工作提供信息。
方法
在两个研究地点邀请患者担任两个 PAC 的成员。我们使用迭代参与过程来征求和纳入患者的反馈意见。PAC 对研究材料和流程的大部分反馈都被采纳了。我们使用调查和退出访谈来评估利益相关者作为 PAC 成员的经验。
结果
几乎所有 PAC 成员都对自己的决策感到满意并被包括在内,但调查和退出访谈表明需要改进沟通。
讨论
尽管大多数人认为他们的反馈被采纳了,而且大多数人认为他们的意见被纳入了研究决策,但有些人表示他们不知道自己的意见是否被用来修改材料或方法。这表明需要向患者利益相关者解释他们的反馈在多大程度上被采纳,并告知他们其他利益相关者(如机构审查委员会)对决策的影响。
结论
我们的评估强调了投入资源进行利益相关者参与的价值。虽然收集患者对研究材料和流程的反馈给我们的研究带来了时间限制和复杂性,但对材料和流程的调整进一步推动了研究目标的实现。