Collaborative learning framework for online stakeholder engagement

Health Expectations

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 868-882

  Khodyakov, Dmitry ^a   Savitsky, Terrance D ^a   Dalal, Siddhartha ^a  

^a RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

Author keywords

CBPR; collaborative learning; modified delphi; online panel; research priorities; stakeholder engagement

Indexed keywords

BAYES THEOREM; COLLABORATIVE LEARNING; COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; ONLINE SYSTEM; SUICIDE; UNITED STATES;

BAYES THEOREM; COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION; DATA COLLECTION; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; INTERDISCIPLINARY PLACEMENT; ONLINE SYSTEMS; SUICIDE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 85027920540     PISSN: None     EISSN: 13697625     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/hex.12383     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Wells K, Jones L. “Research” in community-partnered, participatory research. JAMA, 2009; 302: 320-321.
2. Khodyakov D, Stockdale S, Jones F et al. An exploration of the effect of community engagement in research on perceived outcomes of partnered mental health services projects. Society and Mental Health, 2011; 1: 185-199.
3. Cargo M, Mercer SL. The value and challenges of participatory research: Strengthening its practice. Annual Review of Public Health, 2008; 29: 325–350.
4. Wallerstein N, Duran B. Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: The intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. American Journal of Public Health, 2010; 100(Suppl 1): S40–S46.
5. Jones L, Wells K. Strategies for academic and clinician engagement in community-participatory partnered research. JAMA, 2007; 297: 407–410.
6. Becker DR, Harris CC, McLaughlin WJ, Nielsen EA. A participatory approach to social impact assessment: The interactive community forum. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2003; 23: 367–382.
7. Hamilton Lopez M, Holve E, Rein A, Winkler J. Involving patients and consumers in research: New opportunities for meaningful engagement in research and quality improvement. Academy Health: EDM Forum Community [serial on the Internet]. 2012; June:1-8. Available at: Http://repository.academyhealth.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=edm_briefs&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fq%3DPCORI%2Bengagement%26btnG%3D%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%252C5#search=%22PCORI%20engagement%22, accessed 1 September 2014.
8. O’Fallon LR, Dearry A. Community-based participatory research as a tool to advance environmental health sciences. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2002; 110(Suppl 2): 155–159.
9. 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. Available at: Http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/tools-and-resources/how-to-get-involved-in-the-effective-health-care-program/, accessed 12 March 2014.
10. Wallerstein N, Duran B. Using community-based participatory research to address health disparities. Health Promotion Practice, 2006; 7: 312–323.
11. Martin GP. Representativeness, legitimacy and power in public involvement in health-service management. Social Science & Medicine, 2008; 67: 1757–1765.
12. Lehoux P, Daudelin G, Demers-Payette O, Boivin A. Fostering deliberations about health innovation: What do we want to know from publics? Social Science & Medicine, 2009; 68: 2002–2009.
13. Wiseman V, Mooney G, Berry G, Tang KC. Involving the general public in priority setting: Experiences from Australia. Social Science & Medicine, 2003; 56: 1001–1012.
14. Daniels SE, Walker GB. Working through Environmental Conflict: The Collaborative Learning Approach. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2001.
15. Greenhalgh T, Russell J, Ashcroft RE, Parsons W. Why National eHealth Programs need dead philosophers: Wittgensteinian reflections on policymakers’ reluctance to learn from history. Milbank Quarterly, 2011; 89: 533–563.
16. Tenbensel T. Virtual special issue: Public participation in health policy in high income countries. Social Science and Medicine [serial on the Internet]. No date. Available at: Http://www.elsevierscitech.com/pdfs/Public_Participation_Health_Policy.pdf, accessed 24 April 2013.
17. Okoli C, Pawlowski SD. The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management, 2004; 42: 15–29.
18. 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. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2014; 47: 309–314.
19. Litva A, Coast J, Donovan J et al. ‘The public is too subjective’: Public involvement at different levels of health-care decision making. Social Science & Medicine, 2002; 54: 1825–1837.
20. Bennett P, Smith SJ. Genetics, insurance and participation: How a Citizens’ Jury reached its verdict. Social Science & Medicine, 2007; 64: 2487–2498.
21. Rowe G, Wright G. Expert opinions in forecasting: The role of the Delphi technique. In: Armstrong JS (ed.) Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners. New York: Springer, 2001:125–144.
22. Page SE. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007.
23. Mohammed SA, Walters KL, LaMarr J, Evans-Campbell T, Fryberg S. Finding middle ground: Negotiating university and tribal community interests in community based participatory research. Nursing Inquiry, 2011; 19: 116–127.
24. Bowles KH, Holmes JH, Naylor MD, Liberatore M, Nydick R. Expert consensus for discharge referral decisions using online Delphi. AMIA Symposium Proceedings, 2003; 2003: 106–109.
25. Elwyn G, O’Connor A, Stacey D et al. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: Online international Delphi consensus process. British Medical Journal, 2006; 333: 417–423.
26. Fitch K, Bernstein SJ, Aguilar MD et al. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User’s Manual. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2001. Contract No.: MR-1269-DG-XII/RE.
27. Walls J, Rowe G, Frewer L. Stakeholder engagement in food risk management Evaluation of an iterated workshop approach. Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England), 2011; 20: 241–260.
28. Bunting SW. Assessing the stakeholder Delphi for facilitating interactive participation and consensus building for sustainable aquaculture development. Society & Natural Resources, 2010; 23: 758–775.
29. Owens C, Ley A, Aitken P. Do different stakeholder groups share mental health research priorities? A four-arm Delphi study Health Expectations, 2008; 11: 418–431.
30. Pretty JN. Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development, 1995; 23: 1247–1263.
31. Galton F. Vox populi. Nature, 1907; 75: 450-451.
32. Hong L, Page SE. Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 2004; 101: 16385–16389.
33. Keith DW. When is it appropriate to combine expert judgments? Climatic Change, 1996; 33: 139–143.
34. Gabel MJ, Shipan CR. A social choice approach to expert consensus panels. Journal of Health Economics, 2004; 23: 543–564.
35. Fiol CM. Consensus, diversity, and learning in organizations. Organization Science, 1994; 5: 403–420.
36. Greatorex J, Dexter T. An accessible analytical approach for investigating what happens between the rounds of a Delphi study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 2000; 32: 1016–1024.
37. Steinert M. A dissensus based online Delphi approach: An explorative research tool. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 2009; 76: 291–300.
38. Dillenbourg P. Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. New York, NY: Elsevier Science, 1999.
39. Stahl G, Koschmann T, Suthers D. Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In: Sawyer RK (ed.) Cambridge Handbook ofthe Learning Sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006: 409–426.
40. 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. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 2011; 78: 1426–1444.
41. Feldman S. Measuring issue preferences: The problem of response instability. Political Analysis, 1989; 1: 25–60.
42. McDonnell J, Meijler A, Kahan JP, Bernstein SJ, Rigter H. Panellist consistency in the assessment of medical appropriateness. Health Policy, 1996; 37: 139–152.
43. National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention’s Research Prioritization Task Force. Stakeholder survey results. 2012. Available at: Http://actionallianceforsuicideprevention.org/system/files/Stakeholder%20Survey%20-%20Brief%20Overview%20of%20Results%2004%2011%2012.pdf, accessed 10 April 2013.
44. Jones J, Hunter D. Qualitative research: Consensus methods for medical and health services research. British Medical Journal, 1995; 311: 376–380.
45. Thilmany J. What do you think? Mechanical Engineering, 2011; 133:21–22.
46. Khodyakov D, Hempel S, Rubenstein L et al. Conducting online expert panels: A feasibility and experimental replicability study. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2011; 11: 174.
47. Kahneman D, Slovic P and Tversky A. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. 1982, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
48. Mussweiler T, Strack F. The semantics of anchoring. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2001; 86: 234–255.
49. Janis IL. Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning: Boston, MA, 1982.
50. McGrath JE. Groups: Interaction and Performance. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1984.
51. Lomas J, Fulop N, Gagnon D, Allen P. On being a good listener: Setting priorities for applied health services research. Milbank Quarterly, 2003; 81:363–388.
52. Washington AE, Lipstein SH. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute—promoting better information, decisions, and health. New England Journal of Medicine, 2011; 365: E31(1)-e31 (3).
53. Selby JV, Beal AC, Frank L. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) national priorities for research and initial research Agenda. JAMA, 2012; 307: 1583–1584.
54. Christopher S, Watts V, McCormick AKHG, Young S. Building and maintaining trust in a community-based participatory research partnership. American Journal of Public Health, 2008; 98: 1398–1406.
55. Israel BA, Coombe CM, Cheezum RR et al. Community-based participatory research: A capacity-building approach for policy advocacy aimed at eliminating health disparities. American Journal of Public Health, 2010; 100: 2094–2102.
56. Keeney S, Hasson F, McKenna HP. A critical review of the Delphi technique as a research methodology for nursing. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 2001; 38: 195–200.
57. Woudenberg F. An evaluation of Delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 1991; 40: 131–150.
58. Jillson IA. The national drug-abuse policy Delphi. In: Linstone H, Turoff M (eds). The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications, 2002: 119–154. http://is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/. Accessed 10 April 2014.