NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Engaging Stakeholders To Identify and Prioritize Future Research Needs
Methods Future Research Needs Reports, No. 4
Investigators: Christen O’Haire, PhD, Melissa McPheeters, PhD, MPH, Erika Nakamoto, MS, Lia LaBrant, BA/BS, MD Candidate, Carole Most, WHCNP, Kathy Lee, BA, Elaine Graham, MLS, Erika Cottrell, PhD, MPP, and Jeanne-Marie Guise, MD, MPH.
Author Information and AffiliationsStructured Abstract
Objectives:
To describe methods used to engage stakeholders to prioritize future research needs from Comparative Effectiveness Reviews.
Data Sources:
There were three complementary phases in this project: Phase 1: Literature Scan; Phases 2 and 3: Interviews with key informants (KIs) and Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) with experience engaging stakeholders.
Methods:
Phase 1: We searched and reviewed the literature from inception until August/September 2010 to identify methods used to engage stakeholders in identifying and prioritizing research. Phase 2: Between June 16 and July 9, 2010, KIs were interviewed about their experiences engaging stakeholders and the processes used to set research priorities. Investigators analyzed interview transcripts to identify common themes. Phase 3: The experiences of EPCs in engaging stakeholders to identify research gaps and prioritize future research needs were evaluated by: (1) review of EPC protocols and (2) semistructured interviews with EPC directors and staff.
Results:
Phase 1: Fifty-six studies were identified. Important considerations in stakeholder engagement included the need for consistent terminology, the intended purpose for engagement, the explicit identification of stakeholder groups, and the distribution of stakeholders. Studies frequently used a mixed-methods approach for research prioritization, combining in-person venues with quantitative prioritization processes such as voting or Delphi. Phase 2: We conducted 13 interviews. KIs used e-mail, conference calls, focus groups, and the modified Delphi technique to engage stakeholders. Processes for prioritization ranged from no formal process to a structured process that consisted of multiple rounds of voting/ranking. Phase 3: Eight EPCs were interviewed. Group conference calls were the most common approach of stakeholder engagement, along with e-mail or Web-based prioritization. EPCs routinely identified three main challenges, including timing, restriction on number of stakeholders, and limited availability of Federal stakeholders.
Conclusions:
Important considerations regarding stakeholder engagement to prioritize research include use of:
- Consistent terminology and definitions throughout the process.
- In-person methods for brainstorming, identifying topics, clarifying issues, and eliciting a deeper understanding.
- Quantitative methods for prioritizing research.
Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Peer Reviewers
- Executive Summary
- Background
- Methods
- Results
- Discussion
- Conclusions
- References
- Abbreviations
- Appendixes
- Appendix A. Engaging Stakeholders: Literature Review Search Strategies
- Appendix B. Key Informant Interview Invitation and Conflict of Interest Request
- Appendix C. Key Informant Interview Guide
- Appendix D. Invitation Letter to Evidence-based Practice Centers
- Appendix E. Interview Guide for EPC Interviews
- Appendix F. Descriptions of Stakeholder Engagement Methods
- Appendix G. Strengths and Limitations of Stakeholder Engagement Methods
- Appendix H. Literature Results: Stakeholder Participation Rates by Engagement Method
- Appendix I. Evidence-based Practice Center Future Research Needs Document Pilot Projects: Protocols for Engaging Stakeholders
Suggested citation:
O’Haire C, McPheeters M, Nakamoto EK, LaBrant L, Most C, Lee K, Graham E, Cottrell E, Guise J-M. Methods for Engaging Stakeholders To Identify and Prioritize Future Research Needs. Methods Future Research Needs Report No. 4. (Prepared by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center and the Vanderbilt Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10057-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 11-EHC044-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. June 2011. Available at: www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.
This report is based on research conducted by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. HHSA 290-2007-10057-I). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the author(s), who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The information in this report is intended to help health care researchers and funders of research make well-informed decisions in designing and funding research and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of scientific judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical research and in
This information does not represent and should not be construed to represent an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or Department of Health and Human Services determination or policy.
None of the investigators has any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.
- 1
540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; www
.ahrq.gov
- NLM CatalogRelated NLM Catalog Entries
- Review A practice-based tool for engaging stakeholders in future research: a synthesis of current practices.[J Clin Epidemiol. 2013]Review A practice-based tool for engaging stakeholders in future research: a synthesis of current practices.Guise JM, O'Haire C, McPheeters M, Most C, Labrant L, Lee K, Barth Cottrell EK, Graham E. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Jun; 66(6):666-74. Epub 2013 Mar 13.
- Review Defining the Benefits of Stakeholder Engagement in Systematic Reviews[ 2014]Review Defining the Benefits of Stakeholder Engagement in Systematic ReviewsCottrell E, Whitlock E, Kato E, Uhl S, Belinson S, Chang C, Hoomans T, Meltzer D, Noorani H, Robinson K, et al. 2014 Mar
- Review Evaluating the Potential Use of Modeling and Value-of-Information Analysis for Future Research Prioritization Within the Evidence-Based Practice Center Program[ 2011]Review Evaluating the Potential Use of Modeling and Value-of-Information Analysis for Future Research Prioritization Within the Evidence-Based Practice Center ProgramMyers E, Sanders GD, Ravi D, Matchar D, Havrilesky L, Samsa G, Powers B, McBroom A, Musty M, Gray R. 2011 Jun
- Review Discerning the Perception and Impact of Patients Involved in Evidence-based Practice Center Key Informant Interviews[ 2017]Review Discerning the Perception and Impact of Patients Involved in Evidence-based Practice Center Key Informant InterviewsCornman DH, White CM. 2017 Sep
- Review Prioritization Criteria Methodology for Future Research Needs Proposals Within the Effective Health Care Program: PiCMe-Prioritization Criteria Methods[ 2013]Review Prioritization Criteria Methodology for Future Research Needs Proposals Within the Effective Health Care Program: PiCMe-Prioritization Criteria MethodsAndrews J. 2013 Jan
- Engaging Stakeholders To Identify and Prioritize Future Research NeedsEngaging Stakeholders To Identify and Prioritize Future Research Needs
- Communication and Dissemination Strategies to Facilitate the Use of Health-Relat...Communication and Dissemination Strategies to Facilitate the Use of Health-Related Evidence
- Vitamin D and CalciumVitamin D and Calcium
- Closing the Quality Gap: A Critical Analysis of Quality Improvement Strategies (...Closing the Quality Gap: A Critical Analysis of Quality Improvement Strategies (Vol. 5: Asthma Care)
- Technology Assessment of Molecular Pathology Testing for the Estimation of Progn...Technology Assessment of Molecular Pathology Testing for the Estimation of Prognosis for Common Cancers
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...