TY - JOUR
T1 - Priorities for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research: The Views of Minority and Underserved Communities
AU - Goold, Susan D.
AU - Myers, C. D
AU - Szymecko, Lisa
AU - Collins, Carla
AU - Martinez, Sal
AU - Ledon, Charo
AU - Campbell, Terrance
AU - Danis, Marion
AU - Cargill, Stephanie
AU - Kim, H. Myra
AU - Rowe, Zachary
PY - 2017/3/12
Y1 - 2017/3/12
N2 - Objective
To learn how minority and underserved communities would set priorities for patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR).
Data Sources
Sixteen groups (n = 183) from minority and underserved communities in two states deliberated about PCOR priorities using the simulation exercise CHoosing All Together (CHAT). Most participants were minority, one-third reported income <$10,000, and one-fourth reported fair/poor health.
Design
Academic–community partnerships adapted CHAT for PCOR priority setting using existing research agendas and interviews with community leaders, clinicians, and key informants.
Data Collection
Tablet-based CHAT collected demographic information, individual priorities before and after group deliberation, and groups' priorities.
Principal Findings
Individuals and groups prioritized research on Quality of Life, Patient-Doctor, Access, Special Needs, and (by total resources spent) Compare Approaches. Those with less than a high school education were less likely to prioritize New Approaches, Patient-Doctor, Quality of Life, and Families/Caregivers. Blacks were less likely to prioritize research on Causes of Disease, New Approaches, and Compare Approaches than whites. Compare Approaches, Special Needs, Access, and Families/Caregivers were significantly more likely to be selected by individuals after compared to before deliberation.
Conclusions
Members of underserved communities, in informed deliberations, prioritized research on Quality of Life, Patient-Doctor, Special Needs, Access, and Compare Approaches.
AB - Objective
To learn how minority and underserved communities would set priorities for patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR).
Data Sources
Sixteen groups (n = 183) from minority and underserved communities in two states deliberated about PCOR priorities using the simulation exercise CHoosing All Together (CHAT). Most participants were minority, one-third reported income <$10,000, and one-fourth reported fair/poor health.
Design
Academic–community partnerships adapted CHAT for PCOR priority setting using existing research agendas and interviews with community leaders, clinicians, and key informants.
Data Collection
Tablet-based CHAT collected demographic information, individual priorities before and after group deliberation, and groups' priorities.
Principal Findings
Individuals and groups prioritized research on Quality of Life, Patient-Doctor, Access, Special Needs, and (by total resources spent) Compare Approaches. Those with less than a high school education were less likely to prioritize New Approaches, Patient-Doctor, Quality of Life, and Families/Caregivers. Blacks were less likely to prioritize research on Causes of Disease, New Approaches, and Compare Approaches than whites. Compare Approaches, Special Needs, Access, and Families/Caregivers were significantly more likely to be selected by individuals after compared to before deliberation.
Conclusions
Members of underserved communities, in informed deliberations, prioritized research on Quality of Life, Patient-Doctor, Special Needs, Access, and Compare Approaches.
KW - Patient centered outcomes research
KW - Resource allocation
KW - Minority groups
KW - Decision Making
KW - Research priorities
M3 - Article
C2 - 27206519
SN - 0017-9124
JO - Health Services Research
JF - Health Services Research
ER -