Pragmatic evaluation of events and benefits of lipid lowering in older adults (PREVENTABLE): Trial design and rationale.

Whether initiation of statins could increase survival free of dementia and disability in adults aged ≥75 years is unknown. PREVENTABLE, a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized pragmatic clinical trial, will compare high-intensity statin therapy (atorvastatin 40 mg) with placebo in 20,000 community-dwelling adults aged ≥75 years without cardiovascular disease, disability, or dementia at baseline. Exclusion criteria include statin use in the prior year or for >5 years and inability to take a statin. Potential participants are identified using computable phenotypes derived from the electronic health record and local referrals from the community. Participants will undergo baseline cognitive testing, with physical testing and a blinded lipid panel if feasible. Cognitive testing and disability screening will be conducted annually. Multiple data sources will be queried for cardiovascular events, dementia, and disability; survival is site-reported and supplemented by a National Death Index search. The primary outcome is survival free of new dementia or persisting disability. Co-secondary outcomes are a composite of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for unstable angina or myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, or coronary revascularization; and a composite of mild cognitive impairment or dementia. Ancillary studies will offer mechanistic insights into the effects of statins on key outcomes. Biorepository samples are obtained and stored for future study. These results will inform the benefit of statins for increasing survival free of dementia and disability among older adults. This is a pioneering pragmatic study testing important questions with low participant burden to align with the needs of the growing population of older adults.

Stakeholder engagement infrastructure to support multicenter research networks: Advances from the clinical research networks participating in PCORnet.

Background: The evidence based on the inclusion of patients and other stakeholders as partners in the clinical research process has grown substantially. However, little has been reported on how stakeholders are engaged in the governance of large-scale clinical research networks and the infrastructure used by research networks to support engagement in network-affiliated activities. Objectives: The objective was to document engagement activities and practices emerging from Clinical Research Networks (CRNs) participating in PCORnet, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, specifically regarding governance and engagement infrastructure. Methods: We conducted an environmental scan of PCORnet CRN engagement structures, assets, and services, focusing on network oversight structures for policy development and strategic decision-making. The scan included assets and services for supporting patient/stakeholder engagement. Data were collected by searching web-based literature and tool repositories, review of CRN Engagement Plans, analysis of previously collected key informant interviews, and CRN-based iterative review of structured worksheets. Results: We identified 87 discrete engagement structures, assets, and services across nine CRNs. All CRNs engage patients/stakeholders in their governance, maintain workgroups and/or staff dedicated to overseeing engagement strategies, and offer one or more services to non-CRN researchers to enhance conducting engaged clinical research. Conclusions: This work provides an important resource for the research community to explore engagement across peers, reflect on progress, consider opportunities to leverage existing infrastructure, and identify new collaborators. It also serves to highlight PCORnet as a resource for non-CRN researchers seeking to efficiently conduct engaged clinical research and a venue for advancing the science of engagement.

PCORnet® 2020: current state, accomplishments, and future directions.

OBJECTIVE: To describe PCORnet, a clinical research network developed for patient-centered outcomes research on a national scale. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Descriptive study of the current state and future directions for PCORnet. We conducted cross-sectional analyses of the health systems and patient populations of the 9 Clinical Research Networks and 2 Health Plan Research Networks that are part of PCORnet. RESULTS: Within the Clinical Research Networks, electronic health data are currently collected from 337 hospitals, 169,695 physicians, 3,564 primary care practices, 338 emergency departments, and 1,024 community clinics. Patients can be recruited for prospective studies from any of these clinical sites. The Clinical Research Networks have accumulated data from 80 million patients with at least one visit from 2009 to 2018. The PCORnet Health Plan Research Network population of individuals with a valid enrollment segment from 2009 to 2019 exceeds 60 million individuals, who on average have 2.63 years of follow-up. CONCLUSION: PCORnet's infrastructure comprises clinical data from a diverse cohort of patients and has the capacity to rapidly access these patient populations for pragmatic clinical trials, epidemiological research, and patient-centered research on rare diseases.

Patient Stories Can Make a Difference in Patient-Centered Research Design.

Amid increasing interest in improving the patient-centeredness of research, new forms of engagement are emerging that enable researchers to get input from community members on research goals, methods, and implementation. This input often includes stories, which are useful for understanding lived experiences of illness and encounters with health care organizations, and for locating these experiences within larger meta-narratives of specific communities. We analyzed the stories in transcripts of 13 Community Engagement Studios and identified 4 major functions that the stories served in the sessions. Major functions included: (1) establishing mutual understanding, (2) adding expansion and depth, (3) characterizing abstract concepts, and (4) providing context for experience, with the latter being the most frequent. We assert that stories can serve to better communicate the complex contexts of patient experiences, helping to align research priorities and research design with community interests, leading to more patient-centered innovations in clinical practice.

Community Experiences and Perceptions of Clinical and Translational Research and Researchers.

BACKGROUND: Engaging communities in research is increasingly recognized as critical to translation of research into improved health outcomes. Our objective was to understand community stakeholders' perspectives on researchers, academic institutions, and how community is valued in research. METHODS: A 45-item survey assessing experiences and perceptions of research (trust, community value, equity, researcher preparedness, and indicators of successful engagement) was distributed to 226 community members involved in health research with academic institutions. RESULTS: Of the 109 respondents, 60% were racial/ethnic minorities and 78% were women, representing a range of community organizations, faith-based organizations, and public health agencies. Most (57%) reported current involvement with a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA). Only 25% viewed researchers as well-prepared to engage communities and few (13%) reported that resources were available and adequate to support community involvement. Most community stakeholders (66%) were compensated for their involvement in research, but only 40% perceived compensation to be appropriate. Trust of research and perceptions that researchers value community were more positive among those who perceived their compensation as appropriate (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate compensation and resources to support community involvement in research may improve perceptions of trust and value in academic-community partnerships. Strategies are needed to increase researcher preparedness to engage with communities.

A Multilevel Approach to Stakeholder Engagement in the Formulation of a Clinical Data Research Network.

OBJECTIVES: To ensure meaningful engagement of stakeholders (patients, clinicians, and communities) in developing the Mid-South Clinical Data Research Network (MS-CDRN), we implemented a comprehensive, multilevel approach: (1) identify barriers to involving stakeholders in governance, network design, and implementation; (2) engage stakeholders in priority setting and research topic generation; (3) develop strategies to fully integrate stakeholders in CDRN governance and oversight; and (4) solicit guidance on patient-centered tools and strategies for recruiting research participants. METHODS: We engaged stakeholders: (1) as integral research team members; (2) on oversight and advisory committees; (3) as consultants (using Community Engagement Studios); and (4) through interviews and surveys. We recruited stakeholders from community health centers, churches, barbershops, health fairs, a volunteer registry, and a patient portal. We prioritized recruitment from populations often underrepresented in research. RESULTS: During the first 18 months, we engaged 5670 stakeholders in developing the MS-CDRN. These were research team members and on governance committees (N=10), consultants (N=58), survey respondents (N=5543), and interviewees (N=59). Stakeholders identified important barriers and facilitators to engagement, developed stakeholder-informed policies, provided feedback on priority topics and research questions, and developed an intake process for data requests and interventional studies that included reviewing for appropriate patient-centeredness, patient engagement, and dissemination. DISCUSSION: Multilevel stakeholder engagement is a novel systematic approach to developing a meaningful patient-centered and patient-engaged research program. This approach allows ongoing input from highly engaged stakeholders while leveraging focused input from larger, more diverse groups to enhance the patient-centeredness of research and increase relevance to broader audiences.

The National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) Bariatric Study Cohort: Rationale, Methods, and Baseline Characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Although bariatric procedures are commonly performed in clinical practice, long-term data on the comparative effectiveness and safety of different procedures on sustained weight loss, comorbidities, and adverse effects are limited, especially in important patient subgroups (eg, individuals with diabetes, older patients, adolescents, and minority patients). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to create a population-based cohort of patients who underwent 3 commonly performed bariatric procedures-adjustable gastric band (AGB), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and sleeve gastrectomy (SG)-to examine the long-term comparative effectiveness and safety of these procedures in both adults and adolescents. METHODS: We identified adults (20 to 79 years old) and adolescents (12 to 19 years old) who underwent a primary (first observed) AGB, RYGB, or SG procedure between January 1, 2005 and September 30, 2015 from 42 health systems participating in the Clinical Data Research Networks within the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet). We extracted information on patient demographics, encounters with healthcare providers, diagnoses recorded and procedures performed during these encounters, vital signs, and laboratory test results from patients' electronic health records (EHRs). The outcomes of interest included weight change, incidence of major surgery-related adverse events, and diabetes remission and relapse, collected for up to 10 years after the initial bariatric procedure. RESULTS: A total of 65,093 adults and 777 adolescents met the eligibility criteria of the study. The adult subcohort had a mean age of 45 years and was predominantly female (79.30%, 51,619/65,093). Among adult patients with non-missing race or ethnicity information, 72.08% (41,248/57,227) were White, 21.13% (12,094/57,227) were Black, and 20.58% (13,094/63,637) were Hispanic. The average highest body mass index (BMI) recorded in the year prior to surgery was 49 kg/m2. RYGB was the most common bariatric procedure among adults (49.48%, 32,208/65,093), followed by SG (45.62%, 29,693/65,093) and AGB (4.90%, 3192/65,093). The mean age of the adolescent subcohort was 17 years and 77.5% (602/777) were female. Among adolescent patients with known race or ethnicity information, 67.3% (473/703) were White, 22.6% (159/703) were Black, and 18.0% (124/689) were Hispanic. The average highest recorded BMI in the year preceding surgery was 53 kg/m2. The majority of the adolescent patients received SG (60.4%, 469/777), followed by RYGB (30.8%, 239/777) and AGB (8.9%, 69/777). A BMI measurement (proxy for follow-up) was available in 84.31% (44,978/53,351), 68.09% (20,783/30,521), and 68.56% (7159/10,442) of the eligible adult patients at 1, 3, and 5 years of follow-up, respectively. The corresponding proportion was 82.0% (524/639), 49.9% (174/349), and 38.8% (47/121) in the adolescent subcohort. CONCLUSIONS: Our study cohort is one of the largest cohorts of patients with bariatric procedures in the United States. Patients are geographically and demographically diverse, which improves the generalizability of the research findings and allows examination of treatment effect heterogeneity. Ongoing and planned investigations will provide real-world evidence on the long-term benefits and risks of these most commonly used bariatric procedures in current clinical practice.

Recruitment methods for survey research: Findings from the Mid-South Clinical Data Research Network.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to report survey response rates and demographic characteristics of eight recruitment approaches to determine acceptability and effectiveness of large-scale patient recruitment among various populations. METHODS: We conducted a cross sectional analysis of survey data from two large cohorts. Patients were recruited from the Mid-South Clinical Data Research Network using clinic-based recruitment, research registries, and mail, phone, and email approaches. Response rates are reported as patients who consented for the survey divided by the number of eligible patients approached. RESULTS: We contacted more than 90,000 patients and 13,197 patients completed surveys. Median age was 56.3years (IQR 40.9, 67.4). Racial/ethnic distribution was 84.1% White, non-Hispanic; 9.9% Black, non-Hispanic; 1.8% Hispanic; and 4.0% other, non-Hispanic. Face-to-face recruitment had the highest response rate of 94.3%, followed by participants who "opted-in" to a registry (76%). The lowest response rate was for unsolicited emails from the clinic (6.1%). Face-to-face recruitment enrolled a higher percentage of participants who self-identified as Black, non-Hispanic compared to other approaches (18.6% face-to-face vs. 8.4% for email). CONCLUSIONS: Technology-enabled recruitment approaches such as registries and emails are effective for recruiting but may yield less racial/ethnic diversity compared to traditional, more time-intensive approaches.

Community Engagement Studios: A Structured Approach to Obtaining Meaningful Input From Stakeholders to Inform Research.

PROBLEM: Engaging communities in research increases its relevance and may speed the translation of discoveries into improved health outcomes. Many researchers lack training to effectively engage stakeholders, whereas academic institutions lack infrastructure to support community engagement. APPROACH: In 2009, the Meharry-Vanderbilt Community-Engaged Research Core began testing new approaches for community engagement, which led to the development of the Community Engagement Studio (CE Studio). This structured program facilitates project-specific input from community and patient stakeholders to enhance research design, implementation, and dissemination. Developers used a team approach to recruit and train stakeholders, prepare researchers to engage with stakeholders, and facilitate an in-person meeting with both. OUTCOMES: The research core has implemented 28 CE Studios that engaged 152 community stakeholders. Participating researchers, representing a broad range of faculty ranks and disciplines, reported that input from stakeholders was valuable and that the CE Studio helped determine project feasibility and enhanced research design and implementation. Stakeholders found the CE Studio to be an acceptable method of engagement and reported a better understanding of research in general. A tool kit was developed to replicate this model and to disseminate this approach. NEXT STEPS: The research core will collect data to better understand the impact of CE Studios on research proposal submissions, funding, research outcomes, patient and stakeholder engagement in projects, and dissemination of results. They will also collect data to determine whether CE Studios increase patient-centered approaches in research and whether stakeholders who participate have more trust and willingness to participate in research.