Prioritizing Comparative Effectiveness Research for Cancer Diagnostics using a Regional Stakeholder Approach
For which topic were research priorities identified?
In which location was the research priority setting conducted?
North America - USA
Why was it conducted at all?
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) identified stakeholder involvement as a key element of the comparative effectiveness research (CER) effort stimulated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. While stakeholder involvement in community-based participatory research has been advocated for many years to improve the relevance of clinical research, this is not the norm for clinical research. In fact, academic research has traditionally been initiated by investigators who select the research topic and then define and implement specific aims. This approach is successful in generating research matched to the interests and expertise of the investigators; however, the results do not always correspond to the evidence gaps most important to clinical decision-makers or patients. To address the disconnect between research designed by individual investigators and the evidence needs of decision-makers, there has been increased efforts to engage stakeholders in all aspects of CER, particularly during the initial phases of prioritization and selection of specific research topics. In addition to improving research relevance, stakeholder buy-in can aid researchers with access to data, maximizing the utility of the limited resources that are devoted to research.
What was the objective?
to engage regional stakeholders for prioritizing comparative effectiveness research in cancer diagnostics
What was the outcome?
a list of 6 research topics
How long did the research prioritization take?
No information provided.
Which methods were used to identify research priorities?
How were the priorities for research identified exactly?
Step 1: stakeholder meetings: initial list of possible research topics drafted by asking participants about potential research projects of high importance. Step 2: topic selection via landscape analysis/literature review and expert consultation: landscape analysis: literature reviewed to identify potential topics, expert consultation: stakeholders asked to brainstorm topics, then topic summaries developed for each topic, stakeholders asked to rate each topic. Step 3: meeting: overview of topic given, topics discussed, participants then asked to rate each topic, further discussions to establish study feasibility and to refine scope and direction of questions, lastly stakeholders again asked to rate questions
Which stakeholders took part?
Local payers, clinicians and state healthcare representative.
How were stakeholders recruited?
No information provided.
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.