Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: Defining a framework for effective engagement

Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

Volumn 1, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 181-194

  Deverka, Patricia A ^a   Lavallee, Danielle C ^a   Desai, Priyanka J ^a   Esmail, Laura C ^a   Ramsey, Scott D ^b   Veenstra, David L ^c   Tunis, Sean R ^a  

^a Center for Medical Technology Policy   (United States)

^b Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

cancer genomics; comparative effectiveness research; consumer participation; deliberative methods; public participation; stakeholder engagement; stakeholders

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER GENETICS; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONCEPT FORMATION; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; COOPERATION; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUANTITATIVE STUDY; SOCIAL PARTICIPATION;

EID: 84870524790     PISSN: 20426305     EISSN: 20426313     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2217/cer.12.7     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Sox HC, Greenfield S. Comparative effectiveness research: a report from the Institute of Medicine. Ann. Intern. Med. 151(3), 203-205 (2009).
2. Saunders C, Crossing S, Girgis A, Butow P, Penman A. Operationalising a model framework for consumer and community participation in health and medical research. Aust. New Zealand Health Policy 4(1), 13 (2007).
3. Boote J, Telford R, Cooper C. Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda. Health Policy 61(2), 213-236 (2002).
4. Conway PH, Clancy C. Comparative-effectiveness research - implications of the Federal Coordinating Council's report. N. Engl. J. Med. 361(4), 328-330 (2009).
5. Tunis SR, Benner J, McClellan M. Comparative effectiveness research: policy context, methods development and research infrastructure. Stat. Med. 29(19), 1963-1976 (2010).
6. Hoffman A, Montgomery R, Aubry W, Tunis SR. How best to engage patients, doctors, and other stakeholders in designing comparative effectiveness studies. Health Aff. 29(10), 1834-1841 (2010).
7. Keown K, Van Eerd D, Irvin E. Stakeholder engagement opportunities in systematic reviews: knowledge transfer for policy and practice. J. Contin. Educ. Health Prof. 28(2), 67-72 (2008).
8. Mitton C, Smith N, Peacock S, Evoy B, Abelson J. Public participation in health care priority setting: a scoping review. Health Policy 91(3), 219-228 (2009).
9. Noorani HZ, Husereau DR, Boudreau R, Skidmore B. Priority setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of current practical approaches. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 23(3), 310-315 (2007).
10. Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol. Assess. 5(5), 1-186 (2001).
11. Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol. Assess. 5(5), 1-186 (2001).
12. Bogart LM, Uyeda K. Community-based participatory research: partnering with communities for effective and sustainable behavioral health interventions. Health Psychol. 28(4), 391-393 (2009).
13. Shalowitz MU, Isacco A, Barquin N et al. Community-based participatory research: a review of the literature with strategies for community engagement. J. Dev. Behav. Pediatr. 30(4), 350-361 (2009).
14. Rowe G, Frewer LJ. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci. Technol. Human Values 30(2), 251-290 (2005).
15. Stern PC, Feinberg HV. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. National Research Council, Committee on Risk Characterization, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA (1996).
16. Renn O. A model for an analytic - deliberative process in risk management. Environ. Sci. Technol. 33(18), 3049-3055 (1999).
17. Weinberg M. The role of other stakeholders in the clinical research enterprise. In: The Role of Purchasers and Payers in the Clinical Research Enterprise: Workshop Summary. Institute of Medicine, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA (2002).
18. Fearon JD. Deliberation as discussion. In: Deliberative Democracy. Elster J (Ed.). Cambridge University Press, NY, USA, 44-69 (1998).
19. Daniels N, Sabin J. Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philos. Public Aff. 26(4), 303-350 (1997).
20. Amaeshi KM, Crane A. Stakeholder engagement: a mechanism for sustainable aviation. Corp. Soc. Respons. Environ. Manage. 13(5), 245-260 (2006).
21. Apostolakis GE, Pickett SE. Deliberation: integrating analytical results into environmental decisions involving multiple stakeholders. Risk Analysis 18(5), 621-634 (1998).
22. Beierle TC, Konisky DM. Values, conflict, and trust in participatory environmental planning. J. Policy Anal. Manage. 19(4), 587-602 (2000).
23. Carnes SA, Schweitzer M, Peelle EB, Wolfe AK, Munro JF. Measuring the success of public participation on environmental restoration and waste management activities in the US Department of Energy. Technol. Soc. 20(4), 385-406 (1998).
24. Caron-Flinterman JF, Broerse JEW, Teerling J et al. Stakeholder participation in health research agenda setting: the case of asthma and COPD research in The Netherlands. Sci. Pub. Policy 33(4), 291-304 (2006).
25. Halvorsen KE. Assessing public participation techniques for comfort, convenience, satisfaction, and deliberation. Environ. Manage. 28(2), 179-186 (2001).
26. Laurian L, Shaw MM. Evaluation of public participation. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 28(3), 293-309 (2009).
27. Webler T, Tuler S. Fairness and competence in citizen participation. Admin. Soc. 32(5), 566-595 (2000).
28. Webler T, Tuler S, Krueger R. What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environ. Manage. 27(3), 435-450 (2001).
29. Jefford M, Stockler MR, Tattersall MH. Outcomes research: what is it and why does it matter? Intern. Med. J. 33(3), 110-118 (2003).
30. Clancy C, Collins FS. Patient-centered outcomes research institute: the intersection of science and health care. Sci. Transl. Med. 2(37), 37cm18 (2010).
31. Sox HC. Comparative effectiveness research: a progress report. Ann. Intern. Med. 153(7), 469-472 (2010).
32. Chalkidou K, Tunis S, Lopert R et al. Comparative effectiveness research and evidence-based health policy: experience from four countries. Milbank Quarterly 87(2), 339-367 (2009).
33. Nass SJ, Moses HL, Mendelsohn J. A National Cancer Clinical Trials System for the 21st Century: Reinvigorating the NCI Cooperative Group Program. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA (2010).