Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38698315›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical research methodology2024

Using brief reflections to capture and evaluate end-user engagement: a case example using the COMPASS study.

Princess E Ackland, Hildi J Hagedorn, Marie E Kenny, Hope A Salameh, Shannon M Kehle-Forbes, Allison M Gustavson, Leyla E Karimzadeh, Laura A Meis

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04581434 (Comparative Effectiveness of Trauma-Focused and Non-Trauma-Focused Treatment Strategies for PTSD Among Those With Co-Occurring SUD), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04581434 nacompletednot on this map

Comparative Effectiveness of Trauma-Focused and Non-Trauma-Focused Treatment Strategies for PTSD Among Those With Co-Occurring SUD (COMPASS)

TypeinterventionalSponsorCenter for Veterans Research and EducationRan2020 to 2024Enrolled426ConditionsStress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Substance Use DisordersArmsProlonged Exposure Therapy, Cognitive Processing Therapy, Present Centered Therapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Princess E AcklandCenter for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, One Veterans Drive (152), Minneapolis, MN, 55417, USA. princess.ackland@va.gov.
Hildi J HagedornCenter for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, One Veterans Drive (152), Minneapolis, MN, 55417, USA.
Marie E KennyCenter for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, One Veterans Drive (152), Minneapolis, MN, 55417, USA.
Hope A SalamehCenter for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, One Veterans Drive (152), Minneapolis, MN, 55417, USA.
Shannon M Kehle-ForbesCenter for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, One Veterans Drive (152), Minneapolis, MN, 55417, USA.
Allison M GustavsonCenter for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, One Veterans Drive (152), Minneapolis, MN, 55417, USA.
Leyla E KarimzadehCenter for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, One Veterans Drive (152), Minneapolis, MN, 55417, USA.
Laura A MeisCenter for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, One Veterans Drive (152), Minneapolis, MN, 55417, USA.

Funding

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute PTSD-2019C1- 16009
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUse of participatory research methods is increasing in research trials. Once partnerships are established with end-users, there is less guidance about processes research teams can use to successfully incorporate end-user feedback. The current study describes the use of a brief reflections process to systematically examine and evaluate the impact of end-user feedback on study conduct.

methodsThe Comparative Effectiveness of Trauma-Focused and Non-Trauma- Focused Treatment Strategies for PTSD among those with Co-Occurring SUD (COMPASS) study was a randomized controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of trauma-focused psychotherapy versus non-trauma-focused psychotherapy for Veterans with co-occurring posttraumatic stress disorder and substance use disorder who were entering substance use treatment within the Department of Veterans Affairs. We developed and paired a process of "brief reflections" with our end-user engagement methods as part of a supplemental evaluation of the COMPASS study engagement plan. Brief reflections were 30-minute semi-structured discussions with the COMPASS Team following meetings with three study engagement panels about feedback received regarding study issues. To evaluate the impact of panel feedback, 16 reflections were audio-recorded, transcribed, rapidly analyzed, and integrated with other study data sources.

resultsBrief reflections revealed that the engagement panels made recommended changes in eight areas: enhancing recruitment; study assessment completion; creating uniformity across Study Coordinators; building Study Coordinator connection to Veteran participants; mismatch between study procedures and clinical practice; therapist skill with patients with active substance use; therapist burnout; and dissemination of study findings. Some recommendations positively impact study conduct while others had mixed impact. Reflections were iterative and led to emergent processes that included revisiting previously discussed topics, cross-pollination of ideas across panels, and sparking solutions amongst the Team when the panels did not make any recommendations or recommendations were not feasible.

conclusionsWhen paired with end-user engagement methods, brief reflections can facilitate systematic examination of end-user input, particularly when the engagement strategy is robust. Reflections offer a forum of accountability for researchers to give careful thought to end-user recommendations and make timely improvements to the study conduct. Reflections can also facilitate evaluation of these recommendations and reveal end-user-driven strategies that can effectively improve study conduct.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04581434) on October 9, 2020; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT04581434?term=NCT04581434&draw=2&rank=1 .

Indexed as

Stress Disorders, Post-TraumaticSubstance-Related DisordersVeteransHumansPatient ParticipationPsychotherapyResearch DesignUnited StatesUnited States Department of Veterans AffairsEffectiveness trialEvaluation methodsParticipatory researchQualitative methodsVeterans

Identifiers

PMID38698315
PMCPMC11065677

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.