4.1 Article

What works when: mapping patient and stakeholder engagement methods along the ten-step continuum framework

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH
卷 10, 期 12, 页码 999-1017

出版社

FUTURE MEDICINE LTD
DOI: 10.2217/cer-2021-0043

关键词

comparative effectiveness research; patient-centered outcome research; patient engagement

资金

  1. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Award [ME1409-20792]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study provides a recommended 'patient engagement translation table' that identifies evidence-based methods for meaningful patient engagement along a ten-step framework for continuous engagement. Evidence-based engagement methods included community partnerships, focus groups, interviews, meetings, sharing print materials, social media, storytelling, surveys and including patients as research team members. The translation table is designed to assist investigators in determining appropriate engagement methods for meaningful interactions with stakeholders.
Aim: This study provides a recommended 'patient engagement translation table' that identifies evidence-based methods for meaningful patient engagement along a ten-step framework for continuous engagement. Materials & methods: We used a mixed methods research design to collect data on preferred engagement methods, including an environmental scan of available literature, interviews and focus groups with patient-centered outcomes research stakeholders to match methods with research steps and a modified Delphi process with subject matter experts to create the final translation table. Results: Evidence-based engagement methods included community partnerships, focus groups, interviews, meetings, sharing print materials, social media, storytelling, surveys and including patients as research team members. Conclusion: Our recommended patient engagement translation table is designed to assist investigators in determining appropriate engagement methods for meaningful interactions with stakeholders.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据