Suppr超能文献

一种新的利益相关者参与以患者为中心的结局研究的分类法。

A new taxonomy for stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research.

机构信息

Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center and Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA 02111, USA.

出版信息

J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Aug;27(8):985-91. doi: 10.1007/s11606-012-2037-1. Epub 2012 Apr 13.

Abstract

Despite widespread agreement that stakeholder engagement is needed in patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR), no taxonomy exists to guide researchers and policy makers on how to address this need. We followed an iterative process, including several stages of stakeholder review, to address three questions: (1) Who are the stakeholders in PCOR? (2) What roles and responsibilities can stakeholders have in PCOR? (3) How can researchers start engaging stakeholders? We introduce a flexible taxonomy called the 7Ps of Stakeholder Engagement and Six Stages of Research for identifying stakeholders and developing engagement strategies across the full spectrum of research activities. The path toward engagement will not be uniform across every research program, but this taxonomy offers a common starting point and a flexible approach.

摘要

尽管人们普遍认为需要在以患者为中心的结局研究(PCOR)中让利益相关者参与进来,但目前还没有分类法可以指导研究人员和政策制定者如何满足这一需求。我们遵循迭代过程,包括多个利益相关者审查阶段,以解决三个问题:(1)谁是 PCOR 的利益相关者?(2)利益相关者在 PCOR 中可以扮演什么角色和承担什么责任?(3)研究人员如何开始让利益相关者参与进来?我们引入了一个灵活的分类法,称为利益相关者参与的 7Ps 和研究的 6 个阶段,以确定研究活动全范围内的利益相关者并制定参与策略。参与的路径不会在每个研究项目中都保持一致,但这个分类法提供了一个共同的起点和灵活的方法。

相似文献

1
A new taxonomy for stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research.
J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Aug;27(8):985-91. doi: 10.1007/s11606-012-2037-1. Epub 2012 Apr 13.
2
4
A systematic review of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research.
J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Dec;29(12):1692-701. doi: 10.1007/s11606-014-2878-x. Epub 2014 Jun 4.
5
Engaging stakeholders in pharmacoepidemiology research: Current state and recommendations.
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2019 Jun;28(6):766-776. doi: 10.1002/pds.4786. Epub 2019 May 2.
7
PaTH to partnership in stakeholder-engaged research: A framework for stakeholder engagement in the PaTH to Health Diabetes study.
Healthc (Amst). 2020 Mar;8(1):100361. doi: 10.1016/j.hjdsi.2019.05.001. Epub 2019 May 14.
8
Conceptual and practical foundations of patient engagement in research at the patient-centered outcomes research institute.
Qual Life Res. 2015 May;24(5):1033-41. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0893-3. Epub 2015 Jan 6.
9
Engaging Stakeholders and Patient Partners.
Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2018 Oct;27(4):665-673. doi: 10.1016/j.soc.2018.05.007. Epub 2018 Jul 21.
10
A taxonomy of impacts on clinical and translational research from community stakeholder engagement.
Health Expect. 2019 Aug;22(4):731-742. doi: 10.1111/hex.12937. Epub 2019 Jul 18.

引用本文的文献

2
A beginner's guide to implementation science.
JTCVS Tech. 2025 May 23;32:96-101. doi: 10.1016/j.xjtc.2025.05.005. eCollection 2025 Aug.
3
Ten simple rules for research with humans.
PLoS Comput Biol. 2025 Aug 7;21(8):e1013362. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013362. eCollection 2025 Aug.
4
Achieving universal coverage of childhood cancers in Ghana via the National Health Insurance Scheme: A stakeholder analysis.
PLOS Glob Public Health. 2025 Jul 21;5(7):e0004871. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0004871. eCollection 2025.
6
Engaging Social Stakeholders in National Asbestos Research for Public Health: An Italian Experience.
Ann Glob Health. 2025 Jun 5;91(1):25. doi: 10.5334/aogh.4717. eCollection 2025.
7
Selection and Prioritization of Medical Devices for HTA Evaluation: A Systematic Review of Existing Approaches.
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2025 Jun 7. doi: 10.1007/s40258-025-00981-w.
8
"Interest-holders": A new term to replace "stakeholders" in the context of health research and policy.
Cochrane Evid Synth Methods. 2024 Oct 29;2(11):e70007. doi: 10.1002/cesm.70007. eCollection 2024 Nov.
10
Development and evaluation of a stroke research Public Patient Involvement Panel.
HRB Open Res. 2025 Apr 7;7:22. doi: 10.12688/hrbopenres.13838.2. eCollection 2024.

本文引用的文献

1
Pragmatic trials--guides to better patient care?
N Engl J Med. 2011 May 5;364(18):1685-7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1103502.
2
The clinical research enterprise: time to change course?
JAMA. 2011 Feb 9;305(6):604-5. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.104.
3
How best to engage patients, doctors, and other stakeholders in designing comparative effectiveness studies.
Health Aff (Millwood). 2010 Oct;29(10):1834-41. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0675.
4
An evaluation of recent federal spending on comparative effectiveness research: priorities, gaps, and next steps.
Health Aff (Millwood). 2010 Oct;29(10):1768-76. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0687.
5
Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up?
PLoS Med. 2010 Sep 21;7(9):e1000326. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326.
6
Patients' perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010 Jul;26(3):334-40. doi: 10.1017/S0266462310000395.
7
Acting on comparative effectiveness research in COPD.
JAMA. 2010 Jun 16;303(23):2409-10. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.807.
10
Tufts CTSI: comparative effectiveness research as a conceptual framework for a focus on impact.
Clin Transl Sci. 2010 Apr;3(2):56-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-8062.2010.00184.x.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验