Abstract
Patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) emphasizes the involvement of patients and other interested stakeholders during study design, implementation, and evaluation. We provide an example of PCOR using “research democracy”—a process in which individuals involved in research (e.g., team members, participants, and advisors) have a vote and a voice in the decisions that are made and the procedures that are used to conduct the research. We describe the Nueva Vida Intervention study and the strategies used to strengthen team management and team cohesion and to utilize team diversity as an asset. We collected data on team engagement through informal observations, direct discussions, and survey assessments. Team members overwhelmingly agreed that using research democracy approaches increased mutual trust and an individual’s level of influence during the study. Identified barriers indicated the importance of effective communication and the challenges with recruitment, while the benefits included a heightened sense of collaboration and a better understanding of the research process. Initial results suggest that team engagement and research democracy approaches are advantageous to conducting an efficient and effective study, thereby improving PCOR and ultimately benefiting the patients and their caregivers.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
Introduction
Patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) addresses issues and measures outcomes that are meaningful to patients and other stakeholders. PCOR emphasizes involving patients and other interested stakeholder groups such as clinicians, advocates and caregivers in the research process [1,2,3,4]. Some funding agencies, such as the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), require the “active incorporation of perspectives beyond those of the researchers” throughout the entire project [1]. Understanding factors that contribute to successful collaborations is a critical component to better serve our patient populations and forge stronger partnerships in PCOR. The involvement of engaged and enthusiastic team members with diverse perspectives is one of the factors important for PCOR.
The benefits of engagement are demonstrated through the effective management of partnerships concerned with health and social welfare [4, 5]. True engagement yields better work performance among team members. Improved work performance among teams is supported by creating an environment in which team members can fulfill and exceed expected roles and apply creativity to problem-solving to achieve or exceed the desired outcomes [4]. Similar contexts among health care teams can increase patient-centered care [6].
For teams conducting PCOR, one approach that may work to promote involvement among stakeholders with diverse perspectives and experiences is research democracy—a process in which individuals involved in research (e.g., team members, participants, advisors) have a vote and a voice in the decisions that are made and the procedures that are used to conduct the research. Elements of research democracy include opportunities for sharing opinions, casting votes, discussing outcomes, and identifying areas for improvement. We expand upon ideas presented in the limited literature on team engagement in PCOR [7,8,9] and provide examples of effective communication to keep each member updated and informed [9,10,11]. Research democracy can also provide a process for fostering creativity, innovation, and synergy among team members [9, 12, 13].
The purpose of this chapter is to describe research democracy in a PCORI-sponsored project, the Nueva Vida Intervention, and illustrate how such research democracy may promote PCOR. The literature on team engagement in research and public health interventions is limited [7,8,9]. To address these gaps, we present research democracy applications (Table 16.1), team member satisfaction (Table 16.2), barriers (Table 16.3), and benefits (Table 16.4) to conducting research in a PCOR context.
Methods
The Nueva Vida Intervention is a dyadic intervention that aimed to improve quality of life outcomes among Latina breast cancer survivors and their caregivers (PCORI AD12-11-5365) [14]. The Nueva Vida Intervention was evaluated in a randomized controlled trial, and the study team was composed of four community-based organizations (CBOs), scientific investigators from the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center at Georgetown University, clinical and research consultants, an advisory board that included Latina cancer survivors and caregivers, and a data safety and monitoring board [14]. The intervention consisted of eight group-based sessions in which survivors and caregivers learned coping and communication skills in separate rooms and then joined together for discussion and a meal [14]. Throughout the process of study design, intervention refinement, protocol implementation, and follow-up, we collected data on team engagement through informal observations, direct discussions during team meetings, and survey assessments.
Results
Table 16.1 illustrates how we applied elements of PCOR using research democracy approaches during the randomized controlled trial to evaluate the Nueva Vida Intervention. We identified these elements based on evidence from studies of employee engagement, team engagement, and community-based participatory research [13, 14].
During the study period at one of the annual in-person team meetings, we administered a survey to assess team member satisfaction and experiences (see Table 16.2 for a summary of survey results). Team member feedback on this survey helped set the agenda and procedures for upcoming team calls. We specifically asked for barriers and benefits to individual team member’s success and involvement with the study. By eliciting input during open communication on team calls and also through a survey, we obtained feedback about team procedures so that adjustments could be made, as needed. We presented results to team members to promote transparency and open communication. Team members identified barriers (Table 16.3) and benefits (Table 16.4) during the Nueva Vida Intervention Study.
Sites also reported enhanced team engagement within their own organizations. One site principal investigator reported that participation in the project contributed to restructured roles, unified people as a team pursuing a common goal, and fostered creativity and collaboration. The methods used to promote team engagement thus appeared to be advantageous not only for the larger research team but also for the individual community-based organizations. A critical component to whether partners on a research team can thrive involves recognition of their time and expertise through appropriate compensation for time and inclusion in the dissemination of results.
Discussion
Research democracy, a process by which all members of a research team (patients, CBOs, scientific investigators, and other stakeholders) are engaged, valued, respected, and heard through both direct voting and open communication, resulted in a successful PCOR project, the Nueva Vida Intervention study. The management strategies employed kept the study running efficiently and effectively and established mutual trust. Setting clear expectations provided opportunities to foster such trust, and listening to team member concerns promoted transparency and sharing of information in a safe environment. Transparency and effective communication alerts a site to events occurring at other sites which may disrupt study flow such as staff turnover, staff illness, site moves, or other obligations. Team cohesion, developed using the elements of team engagement, generated enthusiasm for the research project among the team members. The diversity of the team was an asset, contributing to the goals of team members individually and the research project as a whole. For example, flexibility during implementation of the study and dissemination of information to the community was particularly important, because the CBOs were more familiar with the community and culture than the researchers. Elements of team engagement that value each person may be more likely to promote community members’ participation in future research. These preliminary results suggest that active application of research democracy elements may promote team engagement and satisfaction as well as awareness of project barriers and benefits, which may, in turn, strengthen and promote PCOR. Future research can systematically explore approaches for how to best assess team engagement to strengthen and promote PCOR.
References
Frank L, Forsythe L, Ellis L, Schrandt S, Sheridan S, Gerson J, et al. Conceptual and practical foundations of patient engagement in research at the patient-centered outcomes research institute. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(5):1033–41.
Wadekar M, Sharma A, Battaglia G. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (PCOR): how can we optimize outcomes in CNS research? Innov Clin Neurosci. 2015;12(3–4):27–31.
Halladay JR, Donahue KE, Sleath B, Reuland D, Black A, Mitchell CM, et al. Community advisory boards guiding engaged research efforts within a clinical translational sciences award: key contextual factors explored. Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2017;11(4):367–77.
Dowling B, Powell M, Glendinning C. Conceptualising successful partnerships. Health Soc Care Community. 2004;12(4):309–17.
Bakker AB, Demerouti E. Towards a model of work engagement. Career Dev Int. 2008;13(3):209–23.
Bakker AB, Demerouti E. The job demands-resources model: state of the art. J Manag Psych. 2007;22(3):309–28.
Lowe G. How employee engagement matters for hospital performance. Healthc Q. 2012;15(2):29–39.
Torrente P, Salanova M, Llorens S, Schaufeli WB. Teams make it work: how team work engagement mediates between social resources and performance in teams. Psicothema. 2012;24(1):106–12.
Jeve YB, Oppenheimer C, Konje J. Employee engagement within the NHS: a cross-sectional study. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015;4(2):85–90.
Ramos V. 10 tips for building strong and engaged action teams. Updated Jan 2016. http://everyday-democracy.org/tips/10-tips-building-strong-and-engaged-action-teams. Accessed 29 Jan 2016.
Vaughn LM, Busch MD. Partnering with insiders: a review of peer models across community-engaged research, education and social care. Health Soc Care Community. 2018;26(6):769–86.
Mitchell P, Wynia M, Golden R, McNellis B, Okun S, Webb CE, et al. Core principles & values of effective team-based health care. Updated Oct 2012. https://www.nationalahec.org/pdfs/vsrt-team-based-care-principles-values.pdf. Accessed 29 Jan 2016.
Minkler M. Community-based research partnerships: challenges and opportunities. J Urban Health. 2005;82(2 Suppl 2):ii3–12.
Rush CL, Darling M, Elliott MG, Febus-Sampayo I, Kuo C, Munoz J, et al. Engaging Latina cancer survivors, their caregivers, and community partners in a randomized controlled trial: Nueva Vida intervention. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(5):1107–18.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kuo, C. et al. (2020). Research Democracy in a Randomized Controlled Trial: Engaging Multiple Stakeholders in Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. In: Ramirez, A., Trapido, E. (eds) Advancing the Science of Cancer in Latinos. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29286-7_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29286-7_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-29285-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-29286-7
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)