Comparative analysis of stakeholder experiences with an online approach to prioritizing patient-centered research topics

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 537-543

  Khodyakov, Dmitry ^a   Grant, Sean ^a   Meeker, Daniella ^a,b   Booth, Marika ^a   Pacheco santivanez, Nathaly ^a   Kim, Katherine K ^c  

^a RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Expertlens; Online modi ed delphi; Patient engagement; Patient centered outcomes research; Pscanner; Stakeholder engagement

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CAREGIVER; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; FUNDING; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MUCOCUTANEOUS LYMPH NODE SYNDROME; ONLINE ANALYSIS; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PERCEPTION; PERSONAL EXPERIENCE; SCIENTIST; SELF REPORT; SOCIAL PARTICIPATION; DELPHI STUDY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; ONLINE SYSTEM; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT; PERSONNEL; QUESTIONNAIRE; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ADULT; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DELPHI TECHNIQUE; FEMALE; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; ONLINE SYSTEMS; PATIENT OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENTS; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 85019741144     PISSN: 10675027     EISSN: 1527974X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocw157     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Domecq J, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Services Res. 2014;14(1):89.
2. Concannon TW, Meissner P, Grunbaum JA, et al. A new taxonomy for stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research. J General Int Med. 2012;27(8):985-91.
3. Boote J, Baird W, Beecroft C. Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: a narrative review of case examples. Health Policy. 2010;95(1):10-23.
4. Forsythe LP, Ellis LE, Edmundson L, et al. Patient and stakeholder engagement in the PCORI pilot projects: description and lessons learned. J General Int Med. 2016;31(1):13-21.
5. Esmail L, Moore E, Rein A. Evaluating patient and stakeholder engagement in research: moving from theory to practice. J Comparative Effectiveness Res. 2015;4(2):133-45.
6. O'Haire C, McPheeters M, Nakamoto EK, LaBrant L, Most C, Lee K, Graham E, Cottrell E, Guise J-M. Methods for Engaging Stakeholders To Identify and Prioritize Future Research Needs. Methods Future Research Needs Report No. 4. (Prepared by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center and the Vanderbilt Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10057-I.) Rockville, MD: AHRQ Publication No. 11-EHC 044-EF. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. June 2011. Available at: www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.
7. Carman KL, Maurer M, Mangrum R, et al. Understanding an informed public's views on the role of evidence in making health care decisions. Health Affairs. 2016;35(4):566-74.
8. Deverka PA, Lavallee DC, Desai PJ, et al. Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: Defining a framework for effective engagement. J Comparative Effectiveness Res. 2012;1(2):181-94.
9. Lavallee DC, Wicks P, Alfonso Cristancho R, Mullins CD. Stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research: High-touch or hightech? Expert Rev PharmacoecoOutcomes Res. 2014;14(3):335-44.
10. Stewart RJ, Caird J, Oliver K, Oliver S. Patients' and clinicians' research priorities. Health Expect. 2011;14(4):439-48.
11. Mallery C, Ganachari D, Fernandez J, et al. Innovative Methods in Stakeholder Engagement: An Environmental Scan. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2012.
12. Oostendorp LJ, Durand M-A, Lloyd A, Elwyn G. Measuring organisational readiness for patient engagement (more): an international online Delphi consensus study. BMC Health Services Res. 2015;15(1):1-13.
13. Claassen CA, Pearson JL, Khodyakov D, et al. Reducing the burden of suicide in the U.S.: The aspirational research goals of the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention Research Prioritization Task Force. Am J Prevent Med. 2014;47(3):309-14.
14. Khodyakov D, Savitsky TD, Dalal S. Collaborative learning framework for online stakeholder engagement. Health Expect. 2016;19(4):868-82.
15. Dalal SR, Khodyakov D, Srinivasan R, Straus SG, Adams J. ExpertLens: a system for eliciting opinions from a large pool of non-collocated experts with diverse knowledge. Technol Forecasting Social Change. 2011; 78(8):1426-44.
16. Campbell KA, Olson LM, Keenan HT. Critical elements in the medical evaluation of suspected child physical abuse. Pediatrics. 2015; 136(1): 35-43.
17. Culley JM. Use of a computer-mediated Delphi process to validate a mass casualty conceptual model. Computers, Inform Nursing. 2011;29(5):272.
18. Cam KM, McKnight PE, Doctor JN, The Delphi method online: medical expert consensus via the Internet. Washington, DC: Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium. AMIA; 2002.
19. Rubenstein L, Khodyakov D, Hempel S, et al. How can we recognize continuous quality improvement? Int J Qual Health Care. 2014;26(1):6-15.
20. Khodyakov D, Hempel S, Rubenstein L, et al. Conducting online expert panels: a feasibility and experimental replicability study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):174.
21. Barber C, Marshall D, Alvarez N, et al. Development of cardiovascular quality indicators for rheumatoid arthritis: results from an internationalexpert panel using a novel online process. J Rheumatol. 2015;42(9): 1548-55.
22. Barber C, Marshall D, Mosher D, et al. Development of system-level performance measures for evaluation of models of care for inflammatory arthritis in Canada. J Rheumatol. 2016;43(3):530-40.
23. Barber C, Patel JN, Woodhouse L, et al. Development of key performance indicators to evaluate centralized intake for patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis ResTherapy. 2015;17(322):1-12.
24. Khodyakov D, Grant S, Barber CEH, Deborah M, Esdaile JM, Lacaille D. Acceptability of an online modified-Delphi panel approach for developing health services performance measures: results from three panels on arthritis research. J Eval Clin Pract. 2016. DOI 10.1111/ jep.12623.
25. Khodyakov D, Mikesell L, Schraiber R, Booth M, Bromley E. On using ethical principles of community-engaged research in translational science. Trans Res. 2016;171:52-62.
26. Khodyakov D, Stockdale S, Smith N, Booth M, Altman L, Rubenstein L. Patient engagement in the process of planning and designing outpatient care improvements at the Veterans Administration healthcare system: Findings from an online expert panel. Health Expect. 2016. DOI 10.1111/hex.12444.
27. Ohno-Machado L, Agha Z, Bell DS, et al. Pscanner: patient-centered scalable national network for effectiveness research. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(4):621-26.
28. Timbie JW, Rudin RS, Towe V, et al. National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) Phase I. Santa Monica, CA: RAND; 2015. Contract.
29. Deverka PA, Lavallee DC, Desai PJ, et al. Facilitating comparative effectiveness research in cancer genomics: Evaluating stakeholder perceptions of the engagement process. J Comparative Effectiveness Res. 2012;1(4):359-70.
30. Lavallee DC, Williams CJ, Tambor ES, Deverka PA. Stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness research: how will we measure success? J Comparative Effectiveness Res. 2012;1(5):397-407.
31. Olaniran BA. A model of group satisfaction in computer-mediated communication and face-to-face meetings. Behav Inform Technol. 1996; 15(1):24-36.
32. Bailey JE, Pearson SW. Development of a tool for measuring and analyzing computer user satisfaction. Manag Sci. 1983;29(5):530-45.
33. Hiltz SR, Johnson K. User satisfaction with computer-mediated communication systems. Manag Sci. 1990;36(6):739-64.
34. Wright S, Street J. Democracy, deliberation and design: the case of online discussion forums. New Media Soc. 2007;9(5):849-69.