Journal of general internal medicine
-
Moving evidence into practice requires the support of stakeholders, who are critical actors in the research process. Yet, research teams need strategies for determining who these stakeholders are, what their roles should be, and how to involve them in research and dissemination activities. In this Perspective, we discuss steps for identifying, categorizing, and including stakeholders in the research process, as a precursor to involving them as communication partners in research dissemination efforts. ⋯ However, this communication is best if it comes from the end-users themselves, the stakeholders, who have a specified involvement in the research process. Combining elements from dissemination, implementation, and management science literature, we identify specific tools and strategies for researchers to (1) understand the roles of various stakeholders potentially impacted by their work, and (2) recognize the specific communication activities these stakeholders could be engaged in, to support the dissemination of research findings. We present a 3-Step Plan for identifying, categorizing, and involving stakeholders in the research process in a way that will lead to their role as communication partners when results are ready to be disseminated widely.
-
Stakeholder advisory boards are recognized as an essential and useful part of patient-centered research. However, such engagement can involve exchanges of diverse individual experiences, multiple opinions, and strong feelings in the face of researchers' limitations, deadlines, and agendas. Yet, little work examines how these potential tensions occur and are resolved in actual advisory board meetings. ⋯ Our analysis focused on two short excerpts from the first PAC meeting to demonstrate members' navigation of advice-giving and advice-receiving-one in which advice was ultimately implemented by the study team and another in which it was deemed unfeasible. Although advice is inherent to the work of all PACs, it often emerges unannounced as negotiated moments, made up of seemingly minor conversation moves. As a recurring event, advice can and should be analyzed and discussed within PACs to improve communication and team dynamics.
-
Editorial
Embracing Social Engagement in Academic Medicine: Ongoing Challenges and How to Move Forward.
Academic medical centers have historically been defined by scientific discovery for health advancement. However, the mounting challenges of modern medicine are fueled by the social, economic, and political determinants of health that predict vulnerability and accelerate poor outcomes. To surmount looming threats to health, the academic medical mindset must equally prioritize social engagement-work that directly addresses the systemic social causes of health and illness-alongside the traditional pedagogy of laboratory-based, translational, and clinical research. ⋯ Academic medicine has the agency to support elements of restructuring to help prioritize research, education, and training to more prominently include social engagement. Crucial steps to ensure the success of this process include prioritizing financial commitments to community-engaged scholarship and programmatic work and rigorous recognition of faculty who work on socially engaged scholarship within promotion schemes. The COVID pandemic presents an unprecedented opportunity for academic medicine to reflect on the breadth of the work we promote and encourage, work that reflects all the complex elements of health-those that can be documented in a lab notebook and those rooted in social systems and structures that we have neglected for too long.
-
Editorial
Operationalizing Stakeholder Engagement Through the Stakeholder-Centric Engagement Charter (SCEC).
There is a need for clear strategies and procedures to operationalize stakeholder engagement in research studies. Clear guidelines that promote shared leadership among study investigators and research stakeholders are important for inclusive and sustainable partnerships. ⋯ This perspective article presents the Stakeholder-Centric Engagement Charter (SCEC), one effort to operationalize a stakeholder engagement approach between researchers and an advisory committee as guided by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute's (PCORI) Research Engagement Principles (i.e., reciprocal relationships, partnerships, co-learning, transparency-honesty-trust). Building on the SCEC can help future investigators develop a study-specific, dynamic, governance document outlining advisory committee and research team preferences in areas such as role expectations, study governance, and decision-making procedures.
-
With 20 million living veterans and millions more immediate family members, and approximately 9 million veterans enrolled in the nationally networked VA healthcare system, representing the interests and needs of veterans in this complex community is a substantial endeavor. Based on the importance of engaging Veterans in research, the VA Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D) Service convened a Working Group of VA researchers and Veterans to conduct a review of patient engagement models and develop recommendations for an approach to engage Veterans in health research that would incorporate their unique lived experiences and interests, and their perspectives on research priorities. ⋯ The resulting model identifies the range of potential stakeholders and three domains of relevant constructs-processes expected to facilitate Veteran engagement in research with other stakeholders, individual stakeholder and external factors, and outcomes. The expectation is that Veteran engagement will benefit research to policy and practice translation, including increasing the transparency of research and producing knowledge that is readily accepted and implemented in healthcare.