Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39402691›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2024

Researcher and partner perspectives on the relationship between engagement in research and three uses of patient-centered comparative clinical effectiveness research study findings.

Maureen E Maurer, Mary E Lavelle, Tandrea Hilliard-Boone, Karen Frazier, Danielle Agraviador, Rachel Mosbacher, Laura Forsythe, Kristin L Carman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Maureen E MaurerAmerican Institutes for Research, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. mmaurer@air.org.
Mary E LavelleAmerican Institutes for Research, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Tandrea Hilliard-BooneAmerican Institutes for Research, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Karen FrazierAmerican Institutes for Research, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Danielle AgraviadorAmerican Institutes for Research, Washington, DC, USA.
Rachel MosbacherPatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
Laura ForsythePatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
Kristin L CarmanPatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA.

Funding

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute,United States IDIQ-Task Order#03-AIR-ENG-AOSEPP-2017-10-26
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe uptake of research findings into clinical practice is critical to providing health care that improves health outcomes for patients. This study explored how Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) awardees perceive the relationship between engagement of patients and other partners in research and three uses, or applications, of patient-centered comparative clinical effectiveness research (CER) study findings, which may lead to uptake in clinical practice: (1) Integration into clinical practice guidelines, recognized point-of-care decision tools, or documents that may inform policy; (2) Implementation beyond the study, including at sites outside of the study setting or patient populations; and (3) Active dissemination of findings to specific audiences by parties external to the study team.

methodsThis exploratory qualitative study examined awardee and partner perceptions of what led to each use of study findings and how engaged partners contributed. We purposively selected PCORI-funded research projects with documentation of each use and conducted virtual interviews with 42 individuals (15 PIs or project leads, 2 research team members, and 25 partners) from 17 projects. We conducted thematic analysis of individual projects or project sets, across projects within each use case, and across the three uses.

resultsParticipants described three primary activities in which engaged partners made contributions before, during and after CER studies that facilitated the use of study findings: (1) generating relevant study findings, (2) distributing study findings strategically, and (3) making connections to people or organizations outside the study team. In addition, engagement continued to facilitate the use of study findings during subsequent PCORI-funded implementation and dissemination-specific projects, with partners adapting interventions and creating and tailoring dissemination messages and products. Finally, participants described attributes of teams' engagement approaches that may have supported partner contributions, including early and ongoing engagement, leveraging partners' connections and understanding of community needs, and using multiple engagement approaches.

conclusionThis study identified examples of how engagement can help facilitate the use of CER study findings, especially when engagement contributions occur in meaningful ways. Findings from this study suggest a framework for future research on the relationship between engagement in research and uptake of study findings into clinical practice.

Indexed as

Comparative effectiveness researchDisseminationEngagementGuidelinesImplementationPartnersUptakeUse cases

Identifiers

PMID39402691
PMCPMC11476073

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.