TY - JOUR
T1 - Deliberative Engagement Methods for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
AU - Morain, Stephanie R.
AU - Whicher, Danielle M.
AU - Kass, Nancy E.
AU - Faden, Ruth R.
N1 - Funding Information:
Dr. Morain gratefully acknowledges generous financial and intellectual support from the Hecht-Levi fellowship program at the Berman Institute of Bioethics. The authors thank Kristina Hallez, Rachel Fabi, and the staff at Geisinger Health System and the Center for Medical Technology Policy for support in the conduct and analysis of the DES study described in this manuscript. This research was supported by Contract Number IP2PI000487-01 from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). All statements in this article, including its findings and conclusions, are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of PCORI, its Board of Governors, or Methodology Committee. Stephanie Morain, Nancy Kass, and Ruth Faden have no conflicts relevant to the contents of this article. Danielle Whicher is an employee of PCORI. Dr. Whicher’s work on the DES study described in this manuscript was completed before her employment with PCORI.
Funding Information:
Acknowledgements Dr. Morain gratefully acknowledges generous financial and intellectual support from the Hecht-Levi fellowship program at the Berman Institute of Bioethics. The authors thank Kristina Hallez, Rachel Fabi, and the staff at Geisinger Health System and the Center for Medical Technology Policy for support in the conduct and analysis of the DES study described in this manuscript.
Funding Information:
Funding This research was supported by Contract Number IP2PI000487-01 from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). All statements in this article, including its findings and conclusions, are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of PCORI, its Board of Governors, or Methodology Committee.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017, Springer International Publishing Switzerland.
PY - 2017/10/1
Y1 - 2017/10/1
N2 - There is growing emphasis on eliciting and incorporating stakeholder perspectives into health research and public policy development. The deliberative engagement session (DES) method provides one approach to elicit informed preferences from patients and other stakeholders on policy issues. DES involves day-long interaction with participants, including short plenary presentations followed by small group discussion. While interest in DES methods is expanding, practical guidance for researchers on this method remains limited. In this paper, we describe the DES method and its contemporary relevance for health policy research, illustrate how to conduct a DES using an example of a recent patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) study with which we were involved, and discuss strengths and challenges of using this approach. DES methods generate rich data, reduce the risk of eliciting uniformed preferences or non-attitudes, and increase the likelihood of eliciting informed, reflective preferences. However, they are resource-intensive, and thus generally require trading away a larger, more representative sample. Despite these limitations, the DES method, when carefully designed, is well-suited for engaging stakeholders in research on complex health policy issues.
AB - There is growing emphasis on eliciting and incorporating stakeholder perspectives into health research and public policy development. The deliberative engagement session (DES) method provides one approach to elicit informed preferences from patients and other stakeholders on policy issues. DES involves day-long interaction with participants, including short plenary presentations followed by small group discussion. While interest in DES methods is expanding, practical guidance for researchers on this method remains limited. In this paper, we describe the DES method and its contemporary relevance for health policy research, illustrate how to conduct a DES using an example of a recent patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) study with which we were involved, and discuss strengths and challenges of using this approach. DES methods generate rich data, reduce the risk of eliciting uniformed preferences or non-attitudes, and increase the likelihood of eliciting informed, reflective preferences. However, they are resource-intensive, and thus generally require trading away a larger, more representative sample. Despite these limitations, the DES method, when carefully designed, is well-suited for engaging stakeholders in research on complex health policy issues.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85016997010&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85016997010&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s40271-017-0238-8
DO - 10.1007/s40271-017-0238-8
M3 - Article
C2 - 28374286
AN - SCOPUS:85016997010
SN - 1178-1653
VL - 10
SP - 545
EP - 552
JO - Patient
JF - Patient
IS - 5
ER -