Special Report

Stakeholder engagement for comparative effectiveness research in cancer care: experience of the DEcIDE Cancer Consortium

Caprice C Greenberg

* Author for correspondence

Wisconsin Surgical Outcomes Research Program, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.

Search for more papers by this author

Email the corresponding author at greenberg@surgery.wisc.edu

Jennifer K Wind

Department of Medical Oncology, Center for Outcomes & Policy Research, Dana–Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA

Search for more papers by this author

George J Chang

Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Ronald C Chen

Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Deborah Schrag

Department of Medical Oncology, Center for Outcomes & Policy Research, Dana–Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:28 Feb 2013https://doi.org/10.2217/cer.12.80

View article

Abstract

Stakeholder input is a critical component of comparative effectiveness research. To ensure that the research activities of the Developing Evidence to Inform Decisions about Effectiveness (DEcIDE) Network, supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, translate into the greatest impact for everyday practice and policy-making in cancer, we were tasked with soliciting stakeholder input regarding priority areas in cancer-related comparative effectiveness research for the DEcIDE Cancer Consortium. Given the increasing emphasis on stakeholder engagement in research, many investigators are facing a similar task, yet there is limited literature to guide such efforts, particularly in cancer care. To help fill this gap, we present our approach to operationalizing stakeholder engagement and discuss it in the context of other recent developments in the area. We describe challenges encountered in convening stakeholders from multiple vantage points to prioritize topics and strategies used to mitigate these barriers. We offer several recommendations regarding how to best solicit stakeholder input to inform comparative effectiveness research in cancer care. These recommendations can inform other initiatives currently facing the challenges of engaging stakeholders in priority setting for cancer.

Keywords:

References

1 Concannon TW, Meissner P, Grunbaum JA et al. A new taxonomy for stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research. J. Gen. Intern. Med.27(8),985–991 (2012).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
2 Chalkidou K, Whicher D, Kary W, Tunis S. Comparative effectiveness research priorities: identifying critical gaps in evidence for clinical and health policy decision making. Int. J.Technol. Assess. Health Care25(3),241–248 (2009).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
3 Freeman RE. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman, Boston, MA, USA (1984).Google Scholar
4 Tompkins EL, Few R, Brown K. Scenario-based stakeholder engagement: incorporating stakeholders preferences into coastal planning for climate change. J. Environ. Manage.88(4),1580–1592 (2008).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
5 Deverka PA, Lavallee DC, Desai PJ et al. Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement. J. Comp. Eff. Res.1(2),181–194 (2012).Link, Google Scholar
6 Charles C, Schalm C, Semradek J. Involving stakeholders in health services research: developing Alberta’s resident classification system for long-term care facilities. Int. J. Health Serv.24(4),749–761 (1994).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
7 Samson D, Schoelles KM. Chapter 2: medical tests guidance (2) developing the topic and structuring systematic reviews of medical tests: utility of PICOTS, analytic frameworks, decision trees, and other frameworks. J. Gen. Intern. Med.27(Suppl. 1),S11–S19 (2012).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
8 Hoffman A, Montgomery R, Aubry W, Tunis SR. How best to engage patients, doctors, and other stakeholders in designing comparative effectiveness studies. Health Aff. (Millwood)29(10),1834–1841 (2010).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
9 Pearson SD. Cost, coverage, and comparative effectiveness research: the critical issues for oncology. J. Clin. Oncol.30(34),4275–4281 (2012).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
101 Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The 2009 Federal Coordinating Council’s Report to the President and Congress on Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) Outlined Stakeholder Engagement as a Core Component. Report to The President and The Congress (2009). www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/cer/cerannualrpt.pdfGoogle Scholar
102 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: the mission of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is to improve the quality, safety, efficiency and effectiveness of healthcare for all Americans by supporting research that helps people make more informed decisions and improves the quality of healthcare services (2011). www.ahrq.govGoogle Scholar
103 Gray C. Stakeholder engagement – a toolkit (2007). www.sustainableaggregates.com/library/docs/samp/l0138_samp_1_019.pdfGoogle Scholar
104 Good practice for stakeholder engagement in the aggregates sector (2004). www.revit-nweurope.org/selfguidingtrail/27_Stakeholder_engagement_a_toolkit-2.pdfGoogle Scholar
105 Stakeholder engagement in research. Connection Newsletter (June 2010). http://crn.cancer.gov/dissemination/newsletters/CRNConnection_V11_I2_Jul2010.pdfGoogle Scholar
106 Advocates in Research Working Group (2011). http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/dclg/ARWG-recom.pdfGoogle Scholar
107 Committee PM. Draft Methodology Report: Our Questions, Our Decisions: Standards for Patient-centered Outcomes Research (2012). www.pcori.org/assets/Preliminary-Draft-Methodology-Report.pdfGoogle Scholar
108 AHRQ Effective Health Care Program. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.govGoogle Scholar
109 Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. (October 24, 2011), ‘In its 2009 report, Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research, the authoring committee establishes a working definition of CER, develops a priority list of research topics to be undertaken with ARRA funding using broad stakeholder input, and identifies the necessary requirements to support a robust and sustainable CER enterprise’ (2009). www.iom.edu/∼/media/Files/Report%20Files/2009/ComparativeEffectivenessResearchPriorities/CER%20report%20brief%2008-13-09.pdfGoogle Scholar
110 Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology. www.allianceforclinicaltrialsinoncology.orgGoogle Scholar

Vol. 2, No. 2

Metrics

Downloaded 133 times

History

Published online 28 February 2013

Published in print March 2013

Information

Keywords

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all of their stakeholder partners for their kind help and thoughtful insight in informing the cancer-related comparative effectiveness research agenda. They would also like to thank the CALGB (now the NCCTG/CALGB/ACOSOG Alliance) leadership for allowing them to integrate stakeholder engagement and comparative effectiveness research agenda-setting activities into their established system. In addition, they would like to thank their Developing Evidence to Inform Decisions about Effectiveness (DEcIDE) Cancer Consortium collaborators at the University of North Carolina: B Carpenter, H Sanoff, K Stitzenberg and A Jackman. Finally, the authors would like to thank their colleagues at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, including W Lawrence and S Smith.

Disclosure

The authors of the report are responsible for its content. Statements in the report should not be construed as endorsement by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

This project was funded under Contract number HHSA290201000006I from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, US Department of Health and Human Services as part of the Developing Evidence to Inform Decisions about Effectiveness (DEcIDE) program. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download