Dataset Information

A Study Examining the Usefulness of a New Measure of Research Engagement.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Engagement of relevant stakeholders' ideas, opinions, and concerns is critical to the success of modern research projects. We have developed a tool to measure stakeholder engagement, called the Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST). The purpose of this paper is to present the implementation and uptake of the stakeholder engagement measure REST among research teams, including the assessment of barriers and facilitating factors for use of the new research engagement measure in practice.

Methods

In this implementation study, project team members participated in baseline and follow-up web-based surveys. Web-based interviews were conducted with a subset of project teams that implemented the REST. On the baseline survey, project teams were asked to provide details about up to three ongoing or recently completed projects, were asked if they agreed with compensation for REST completion, and were asked if they would like to send the survey to stakeholders or would prefer our project team to email their project stakeholders. Follow-up surveys contained questions on reactions to implementing REST and results of REST.

Results

Project team members/researchers who completed the baseline survey (n=86) were mostly female (79%) and Non-Hispanic/Latino(a) White (76%). Those who implemented REST were also mostly female (86%) and Non-Hispanic/Latino(a) White (71%), with an average of 11 years in academic research. About 98% of all participants completing the baseline survey had the capacity to survey partners, while 100% of all teams who implemented REST did. A small portion of respondents indicated the time commitment of REST would be a barrier (29% of baseline survey respondents, 10% of those who implemented REST) and indicated workload would be a barrier (31% of baseline survey respondents, 14% of those who implemented REST).

Discussion

The data presented here indicate that REST implementation is feasible in a volunteer group of ongoing research projects.

SUBMITTER: Bowen DJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8960689 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Study Examining the Usefulness of a New Measure of Research Engagement.

Bowen Deborah J DJ Ackermann Nicole N Thompson Vetta Saunders VS Nederveld Andrea A Goodman Melody M

Journal of general internal medicine 20220329 Suppl 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Engagement of relevant stakeholders' ideas, opinions, and concerns is critical to the success of modern research projects. We have developed a tool to measure stakeholder engagement, called the Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST). The purpose of this paper is to present the implementation and uptake of the stakeholder engagement measure REST among research teams, including the assessment of barriers and facilitating factors for use of the new research engagement measure i ...[more]

PMID: 35349011

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo promote and ensure coaches' fidelity in delivering an online health coaching program to parents of children with suspected developmental delay, we developed and implemented a novel coaching fidelity rating tool, CO-FIDEL (COaches Fidelity in Intervention DELivery). We aimed to (1) Demonstrate CO-FIDEL's feasibility in evaluating coaches' fidelity and its change over time; and (2) Explore coaches' satisfaction with and usefulness of the tool.MethodsIn an observational study design, coaches (n = 4) were assessed using the CO-FIDEL following each coaching session (n = 13-14 sessions/parent-participant) during the pilot phase of a large randomized clinical trial involving eleven (n = 11) parent-participants. Outcome measures included subsections' fidelity measures, overall coaching fidelity, and coaching fidelity changes over time analyzed using descriptive and non-parametric statistics. In addition, using a four-point Likert Scale and open-ended questions, coaches were surveyed on their satisfaction and preference levels, as well as facilitators, barriers, and impacts related to the use of CO-FIDEL. These were analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analysis.ResultsOne hundred and thirty-nine (n = 139) coaching sessions were evaluated with the CO-FIDEL. On average, overall fidelity was high (88.0 ± 6.3 to 99.5 ± 0.8%). Four coaching sessions were needed to achieve and maintain a ≥ 85.0% fidelity in all four sections of the tool. Two coaches showed significant improvements in their coaching skills over time in some of the CO-FIDEL sections (Coach B/Section 1/between parent-participant B1 and B3: 89.9 ± 4.6 vs. 98.5 ± 2.6, Z = -2.74, p = 0.00596; Coach C/Section 4/between parent-participant C1 and C2: 82.4 ± 7.5 vs. 89.1 ± 4.1, Z = -2.66; p = 0.00758), and in overall fidelity (Coach C, between parent-participant C1 and C2: 88.67 ± 6.32 vs. 94.53 ± 1.23, Z = -2.66; p = 0. 00758). Coaches mainly reported moderate-high satisfaction with and usefulness of the tool, and pointed out areas of improvement (e.g., ceiling effect, missing elements).ConclusionsA new tool ascertaining coaches' fidelity was developed, applied, and shown to be feasible. Future research should address the identified challenges and examine the psychometric properties of the CO-FIDEL.

Project description:BackgroundCitizen engagement, or partnering with interested members of the public in health research, is becoming more common. While ongoing assessment of citizen engagement practices is considered important to its success, there is little clarity around aspects of citizen engagement that are important to assess (i.e., what to look for) and methods to assess (i.e., how to measure and/ or evaluate) citizen engagement in health research.MethodsIn this scoping review, we included peer-reviewed literature that focused primarily on method(s) to measure and/or evaluate citizen engagement in health research. Independently and in duplicate, we completed title and abstract screening and full-text screening and extracted data including document characteristics, citizen engagement definitions and goals, and methods to measure or evaluate citizen engagement (including characteristics of these methods).ResultsOur search yielded 16,762 records of which 33 records (31 peer-reviewed articles, one government report, one conference proceeding) met our inclusion criteria. Studies discussed engaging citizens (i.e., patients [n = 16], members of the public [n = 7], service users/consumers [n = 4], individuals from specific disease groups [n = 3]) in research processes. Reported methods of citizen engagement measurement and evaluation included frameworks, discussion-based methods (i.e., focus groups, interviews), survey-based methods (e.g., audits, questionnaires), and other methods (e.g., observation, prioritization tasks). Methods to measure and evaluate citizen engagement commonly focused on collecting perceptions of citizens and researchers on aspects of citizen engagement including empowerment, impact, respect, support, and value.Discussion and conclusionWe found that methods to measure and/or evaluate citizen engagement in health research vary widely but share some similarities in aspect of citizen engagement considered important to measure or evaluate. These aspects could be used to devise a more standardized, modifiable, and widely applicable framework for measuring and evaluating citizen engagement in research.Patient or public contributionTwo citizen team members were involved as equal partners in study design and interpretation of its findings.Systematic review registrationOpen Science Framework (10.17605/OSF.IO/HZCBR).

Project description:The sequence of events in a behaviour change trial involves interactions between research participants and the trial process. Taking part in such a study has the potential to influence the behaviour of the participant, and if it does, this can engender bias in trial outcomes. Since participants' experience has received scant attention, the aim of this study is thus to generate hypotheses about which aspects of the conduct of behaviour change trials might matter most to participants, and thus have potential to alter subsequent behaviours and bias trial outcomesTwenty participants were opportunistically screened for a health compromising behaviour (unhealthy diet, lack of exercise, smoking or alcohol consumption) and recruited if eligible. Semi structured face to face interviews were conducted, after going through the usual processes involved in trial recruitment, baseline assessment and randomisation. Participants were given information on the contents of an intervention or control condition in a behaviour change trial, which was not actually implemented. Three months later they returned to reflect on these experiences and whether they had any effect on their behaviour during the intervening period. Data from the latter interview were analysed thematically using a modified grounded theory approach.The early processes of trial participation raised awareness of unhealthy behaviours, although most reported having had only fleeting intentions to change their behaviour as a result of taking part in this study, in the absence of interventions. However, careful examination of the accounts revealed evidence of subtle research participation effects, which varied according to the health behaviour, and its perceived social acceptability. Participants' relationships with the research study were viewed as somewhat important in stimulating thinking about whether and how to make lifestyle changes.These participants described no dramatic impacts attributable to taking part in this study. This study demonstrates the likely value of well conducted qualitative studies of subtle research participation effects, which may be particularly important to explore for alcohol. Separating unintended influences in trial participation from the effects of behaviour change interventions being evaluated therein is necessary for valid estimates of intervention effects.

Project description:BACKGROUND: A compelling ethical rationale supports patient engagement in healthcare research. It is also assumed that patient engagement will lead to research findings that are more pertinent to patients' concerns and dilemmas. However; it is unclear how to best conduct this process. In this systematic review we aimed to answer 4 key questions: what are the best ways to identify patient representatives? How to engage them in designing and conducting research? What are the observed benefits of patient engagement? What are the harms and barriers of patient engagement? METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane, EBSCO, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Business Search Premier, Academic Search Premier and Google Scholar. Included studies were published in English, of any size or design that described engaging patients or their surrogates in research design. We conducted an environmental scan of the grey literature and consulted with experts and patients. Data were analyzed using a non-quantitative, meta-narrative approach. RESULTS: We included 142 studies that described a spectrum of engagement. In general, engagement was feasible in most settings and most commonly done in the beginning of research (agenda setting and protocol development) and less commonly during the execution and translation of research. We found no comparative analytic studies to recommend a particular method. Patient engagement increased study enrollment rates and aided researchers in securing funding, designing study protocols and choosing relevant outcomes. The most commonly cited challenges were related to logistics (extra time and funding needed for engagement) and to an overarching worry of a tokenistic engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Patient engagement in healthcare research is likely feasible in many settings. However, this engagement comes at a cost and can become tokenistic. Research dedicated to identifying the best methods to achieve engagement is lacking and clearly needed.

Dataset Information

A Study Examining the Usefulness of a New Measure of Research Engagement.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Publications

A Study Examining the Usefulness of a New Measure of Research Engagement.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets