Patient-Centered Model for Protein-Energy Wasting: Stakeholder Deliberative Panels

Byham-Gray et al. (2020) full text summary PDF

For which topic were research priorities identified?

protein-energy wasting

In which location was the research priority setting conducted?

North America - USA

Why was it conducted at all?

Integrating the patient's voice into research prioritization is essential for solving problems that patients care the most about in terms of health, symptom management, and survival.

What was the objective?

to engage stakeholders in panel discussions to deliberate the specific factors that are research priorities, ie determinants of protein-energy wasting and health outcomes that matter most to patients

What was the outcome?

a list of 21 research topics

How long did the research prioritization take?

September 2015 - December 2017

Which methods were used to identify research priorities?

group discussion

How were the priorities for research identified exactly?

Step 1: recruitment of participants. Step 2: group discussions: group discussions separate among patients and among clinicians, group discussions in design of deliberative panel meetings

Which stakeholders took part?

23 participants: 5 dietitians, 3 nephrologists, 5 nurses, 2 social workers, a physical therapist, a pharmacist and 8 patients living with Stage 5 CKD.

How were stakeholders recruited?

Purposive sampling was used in an effort to create a diverse group of patients in accordance to age, sex, race, and ethnicity. The NKF e-mailed patient members who lived in the greater Newark, NJ area regarding the deliberative panels. Seventeen patients were identified from prior research studies. The clinician stakeholder deliberative panel recruitment consisted of practitioners from all disciplines including registered dietitian nutritionists, physical therapists, social workers, nurses, pharmacists, and physicians through the NKF health professions listserv.

Were stakeholders actively involved or did they just participate?

Stakeholders were mere participants of the research prioritization process; they were not actively involved in the process.