ArticlePharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2024
Successful implementation of a stakeholder engagement program for pharmacoepidemiologic research.
Article in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Multidisciplinary stakeholder engagement in a type 2 diabetes comparative effectiveness study utilizing real-world data.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeRigorously conducted pharmacoepidemiologic research requires methodologically complex study designs and analysis yet evaluates problems of high importance to patients and clinicians. Despite this, participation in and mechanisms for stakeholder engagement in pharmacoepidemiologic research are not well-described. Here, we describe our approach and lessons learned from engaging stakeholders, of varying familiarity with research methods, in a rigorous multi-year pharmacoepidemiologic research program evaluating the comparative effectiveness of diabetes medications.
methodsWe recruited 5 patient and 4 clinician stakeholders; each was compensated for their time. Stakeholders received initial formal training in observational research and pharmacoepidemiologic methods sufficient to enable contribution to the research project. After onboarding, stakeholder engagement meetings were held virtually, in the evening, 2-3 times annually. Each was approximately 90 min and focused on 1-2 specific questions about the project, with preparatory materials sent in advance.
resultsStakeholder meeting attendance was high (89%-100%), and all stakeholders engaged with the research project, both during and between meetings. Stakeholders reported positive experiences with meetings, satisfaction, and interest in the research project and its findings, and dedication to the success of the project's goals. They affirmed the value of receiving materials to review in advance and the effectiveness of a virtual platform. Their contributions included prioritizing and suggesting research questions, optimizing written evidence briefs for a lay audience, and guidance on broader topics such as research audience and methods of dissemination.
conclusionsStakeholder engagement in pharmacoepidemiologic research using complex study designs and analysis is feasible, acceptable, and positively impacts the research project.
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.