29
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Stakeholder engagement to inform HIV clinical trials: a systematic review of the evidence

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Stakeholder engagement is an essential component of HIV clinical trials. We define stakeholder engagement as an input by individuals or groups with an interest in HIV clinical trials to inform the design or conduct of said trials. Despite its value, stakeholder engagement to inform HIV clinical trials has not been rigorously examined. The purpose of our systematic review is to examine stakeholder engagement for HIV clinical trials and compare it to the recommendations of the UNAIDS/ AVAC Good Participatory Practice ( GPP) guidelines.

          Methods

          We used the PRISMA checklist and identified English language studies describing stakeholder engagement to inform HIV clinical trials. Four databases (PubMed, Ovid, CINAHL and Web of Science) and six journals were searched, with additional studies identified using handsearching and expert input. Two independent reviewers examined citations, abstracts and full texts. Data were extracted on country, engagement methods, stakeholder types and purpose of stakeholder engagement. Based on the GPP guidelines, we examined how frequently stakeholder engagement was conducted to inform clinical trial research question development, protocol development, recruitment, enrolment, follow‐up, results and dissemination.

          Results and discussion

          Of the 917 citations identified, 108 studies were included in the analysis. Forty‐eight studies (44.4%) described stakeholder engagement in high‐income countries, thirty (27.8%) in middle‐income countries and nine (8.3%) in low‐income countries. Fourteen methods for stakeholder engagement were identified, including individual (e.g. interviews) and group (e.g. community advisory boards) strategies. Thirty‐five types of stakeholders were engaged, with approximately half of the studies (60; 55.6%) engaging HIV‐affected community stakeholders (e.g. people living with HIV, at‐risk or related populations of interest). We observed greater frequency of stakeholder engagement to inform protocol development (49 studies; 45.4%) and trial recruitment (47 studies; 43.5%). Fewer studies described stakeholder engagement to inform post‐trial processes related to trial results (3; 2.8%) and dissemination (11; 10.2%).

          Conclusions

          Our findings identify important directions for future stakeholder engagement research and suggestions for policy. Most notably, we found that stakeholder engagement was more frequently conducted to inform early stages of HIV clinical trials compared to later stages. In order to meet recommendations established in the GPP guidelines, greater stakeholder engagement across all clinical trial stages is needed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references119

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A systematic review of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research.

          We conducted a review of the peer-reviewed literature since 2003 to catalogue reported methods of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness research and patient-centered outcomes research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Patient and Stakeholder Engagement in the PCORI Pilot Projects: Description and Lessons Learned

            BACKGROUND Patients and healthcare stakeholders are increasingly becoming engaged in the planning and conduct of biomedical research. However, limited research characterizes this process or its impact. OBJECTIVE We aimed to characterize patient and stakeholder engagement in the 50 Pilot Projects funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), and identify early contributions and lessons learned. DESIGN A self-report instrument was completed by researchers between 6 and 12 months following project initiation. PARTICIPANTS Forty-seven principal investigators or their designees (94 % response rate) participated in the study. MAIN MEASURES Self-report of types of stakeholders engaged, stages and levels of engagement, facilitators and barriers to engagement, lessons learned, and contributions from engagement were measured. KEY RESULTS Most (83 %) reported engaging more than one stakeholder in their project. Among those, the most commonly reported groups were patients (90 %), clinicians (87 %), health system representatives (44 %), caregivers (41 %), and advocacy organizations (41 %). Stakeholders were commonly involved in topic solicitation, question development, study design, and data collection. Many projects engaged stakeholders in data analysis, results interpretation, and dissemination. Commonly reported contributions included changes to project methods, outcomes or goals; improvement of measurement tools; and interpretation of qualitative data. Investigators often identified communication and shared leadership strategies as “critically important” facilitators (53 and 44 % respectively); lack of stakeholder time was the most commonly reported challenge (46 %). Most challenges were only partially resolved. Early lessons learned included the importance of continuous and genuine partnerships, strategic selection of stakeholders, and accommodation of stakeholders’ practical needs. CONCLUSIONS PCORI Pilot Projects investigators report engaging a variety of stakeholders across many stages of research, with specific changes to their research attributed to engagement. This study identifies early lessons and barriers that should be addressed to facilitate engagement. While this research suggests potential impact of stakeholder engagement, systematic characterization and evaluation of engagement at multiple stages of research is needed to build the evidence base. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11606-015-3450-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The science of stakeholder engagement in research: classification, implementation, and evaluation.

              In this commentary, we discuss the science of stakeholder engagement in research. We propose a classification system with definitions to determine where projects lie on the stakeholder engagement continuum. We discuss the key elements of implementation and evaluation of stakeholder engagement in research posing key questions to consider when doing this work. We commend and critique the work of Hamilton et al. in their multilevel stakeholder engagement in a VA implementation trial of evidence-based quality improvement in women's health primary care. We also discuss the need for more work in this area to enhance the science of stakeholder engagement in research.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                suzanne.day@med.unc.edu
                Journal
                J Int AIDS Soc
                J Int AIDS Soc
                10.1002/(ISSN)1758-2652
                JIA2
                Journal of the International AIDS Society
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1758-2652
                17 October 2018
                October 2018
                : 21
                : Suppl Suppl 7 , Science, theory, and practice of engaged research: Good Participatory Practice and beyond, Guest Editors: Kathleen M MacQueen, Judith D Auerbach ( doiID: 10.1002/jia2.2018.21.issue-S7 )
                : e25174
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill NC USA
                [ 2 ] University of North Carolina – Project China Guangzhou China
                [ 3 ] Department of Social Medicine University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill NC USA
                [ 4 ] Center for Bioethics University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill NC USA
                [ 5 ] School of Medicine University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill NC USA
                [ 6 ] Faculty of Infectious Diseases London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine London UK
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Corresponding author: Suzanne Day, 130 Mason Farm Road, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, USA. Tel: 001‐919‐699‐7993. ( suzanne.day@ 123456med.unc.edu )
                Article
                JIA225174
                10.1002/jia2.25174
                6192899
                30334358
                19416d1b-0708-4985-91b3-513f2584bbc4
                © 2018 The Authors. Journal of the International AIDS Society published by John Wiley & sons Ltd on behalf of the International AIDS Society.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 05 March 2018
                : 20 July 2018
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 4, Pages: 14, Words: 13119
                Funding
                Funded by: National Institutes of Health
                Award ID: R01A108366
                Award ID: 5P30AI050410
                Categories
                Review Article
                Review Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                jia225174
                October 2018
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:version=5.5.0.1 mode:remove_FC converted:17.10.2018

                Infectious disease & Microbiology
                stakeholder engagement,community,hiv clinical trials,reporting quality,systematic review,advisory mechanisms

                Comments

                Comment on this article