ArticleJournal of comparative effectiveness research2012
Facilitating comparative effectiveness research in cancer genomics: evaluating stakeholder perceptions of the engagement process.
Article in Journal of comparative effectiveness research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic Review of Quantitative Measures of Stakeholder Engagement.Clinical and translational science · 2017Pooled it
- Optimizing participant and community engagement in cancer genomic sequencing research.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2025Article
- Effective stakeholder engagement: design and implementation of a clinical trial (SWOG S1415CD) to improve cancer care.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
- Comparative analysis of stakeholder experiences with an online approach to prioritizing patient-centered research topics.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2017Article
- Article
- Older Adults' Perspectives on Clinical Research: A Focus Group and Survey Study.The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry · 2016Article
- International Collaborative Research Partnerships: Blending Science with Management and Diplomacy.Journal of AIDS & clinical research · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThe Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research in Cancer Genomics completed a 2-year stakeholder-guided process for the prioritization of genomic tests for comparative effectiveness research studies. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of engagement procedures in achieving project goals and to identify opportunities for future improvements. MATERIALS &
methodsThe evaluation included an online questionnaire, one-on-one telephone interviews and facilitated discussion. Responses to the online questionnaire were tabulated for descriptive purposes, while transcripts from key informant interviews were analyzed using a directed content analysis approach.
resultsA total of 11 out of 13 stakeholders completed both the online questionnaire and interview process, while nine participated in the facilitated discussion. Eighty-nine percent of questionnaire items received overall ratings of agree or strongly agree; 11% of responses were rated as neutral with the exception of a single rating of disagreement with an item regarding the clarity of how stakeholder input was incorporated into project decisions. Recommendations for future improvement included developing standard recruitment practices, role descriptions and processes for improved communication with clinical and comparative effectiveness research investigators.
conclusionsEvaluation of the stakeholder engagement process provided constructive feedback for future improvements and should be routinely conducted to ensure maximal effectiveness of stakeholder involvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.