What's in This For You? What's in This For Me?: A Win-Win Perspective of Involving Study Advisory Committee Members in Palliative Care Research.

Study advisory committees (SACs) provide critical value to clinical trials by providing unique perspectives that pull from personal and professional experiences related to the trial's healthcare topic. The Emergency Medicine Palliative Care Access (EMPallA) study had the privilege of convening a 16-person SAC from the project's inception to completion. The study team wanted to understand the impact this project had on the SAC members. In this narrative, we use reflective dialogue to share SAC members' lived experiences and the impact the EMPallA study has had on members both personally and professionally. We detail the (1) benefits SAC members, specifically patients, and caregivers, have had through working on this project. (2) The importance of recruiting diverse SAC members with different lived experiences and leveraging their feedback in clinical research. (3) Value of community capacity building to ensure the common vision of the clinical trial is promoted.

Advancing patient-centered research practices in a pragmatic patient-level randomized clinical trial: A thematic analysis of stakeholder engagement in Emergency Medicine Palliative Care Access (EMPallA).

BACKGROUND: Involving patient and community stakeholders in clinical trials adds value by ensuring research prioritizes patient goals both in conduct of the study and application of the research. The use of stakeholder committees and their impact on the conduct of a multicenter clinical trial have been underreported clinically and academically. The aim of this study is to describe how Study Advisory Committee (SAC) recommendations were implemented throughout the Emergency Medicine Palliative Care Access (EMPallA) trial. EMPallA is a multi-center, pragmatic two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing the effectiveness of nurse-led telephonic case management and specialty, outpatient palliative care of older adults with advanced illness. METHODS: A SAC consisting of 18 individuals, including patients with palliative care experience, members of healthcare organizations, and payers was convened for the EMPallA trial. The SAC engaged in community-based participatory research and assisted in all aspects from study design to dissemination. The SAC met with the research team quarterly and annually from project inception to dissemination. Using meeting notes and recordings we completed a qualitative thematic analysis using an iterative process to develop themes and subthemes to summarize SAC recommendations throughout the project's duration. RESULTS: The SAC convened 16 times between 2017 and 2020. Over the course of the project, the SAC provided 41 unique recommendations. Twenty-six of the 41 (63%) recommendations were adapted into formal Institutional Review Board (IRB) study modifications. Recommendations were coded into four major themes: Scientific, Pragmatic, Resource and Dissemination. A majority of the recommendations were related to either the Scientific (46%) or Pragmatic (29%) themes. Recommendations were not mutually exclusive across three study phases: Preparatory, execution and translational. A vast majority (94%) of the recommendations made were related to the execution phase. Major IRB study modifications were made based on their recommendations including data collection of novel dependent variables and expanding recruitment to Spanish-speaking patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides an example of successful integration of a SAC in the conduct of a pragmatic, multi-center RCT. Future trials should engage with SACs in all study phases to ensure trials are relevant, inclusive, patient-focused, and attentive to gaps between health care and patient and family needs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03325985, 10/30/2017.

Clinical research should involve patient and community stakeholder perspectives to make sure the study addresses questions important to the studied population. One way to do this is by creating a group of stakeholders who can advise on the conduct of a study. We assembled a Study Advisory Committee (SAC) for the Emergency Medicine Palliative Care Access (EMPallA) trial. The purpose of this clinical trial is to compare the effectiveness of nurse-led telephonic case management and specialty, outpatient palliative care of older adults with advanced illness. This paper describes how the SACs involvement translated into direct impacts on the EMPallA trial. The trial research team held regular meetings with the SAC throughout the trial process. Their involvement led to many significant changes in the trial, such as  expanding recruitment inclusion criteria (Spanish-speaking patients), and including survey instruments to measure lonelines and caregiver burden. The SAC also devised strategies to overcome patient and caregiver recruitment and retention challenges, including the creation of patient-friendly materials and training for research coordinators. This study provides a successful example of how actively engaging patient and community stakeholders, through committee engagement, can promote patient priorities in all phases of a trial while facilitating patient recruitment and retention.

Pragmatic Considerations in Incorporating Stakeholder Engagement Into a Palliative Care Transitions Study.

BACKGROUND: Stakeholder involvement in health care research has been shown to improve research development, processes, and dissemination. The literature is developing on stakeholder engagement methods and preliminarily validated tools for evaluating stakeholder level of engagement have been proposed for specific stakeholder groups and settings. OBJECTIVES: This paper describes the methodology for engaging a Study Advisory Committee (SAC) in research and reports on the use of a stakeholder engagement survey for measuring level of engagement. METHODS: Stakeholders with previous research connections were recruited to the SAC during the planning process for a multicenter randomized control clinical trial, which is ongoing at the time of this writing. All SAC meetings undergo qualitative analysis, while the Stakeholder Engagement Survey instrument developed by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is distributed annually for quantitative evaluation. RESULTS: The trial's SAC is composed of 18 members from 3 stakeholder groups: patients and their caregivers; patient advocacy organizations; and health care payers. After an initial in-person meeting, the SAC meets quarterly by telephone and annually in-person. The SAC monitors research progress and provides feedback on all study processes. The stakeholder engagement survey reveals improved engagement over time as well as continued challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholder engagement in the research process has meaningfully contributed to the study design, patient recruitment, and preliminary analysis of findings.

Health Policy and Shared Decision Making in Emergency Care: A Research Agenda.

Although the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and other laws have promoted the use of shared decision making (SDM) in recent years, few specific policies have addressed the opportunities and challenges of utilizing SDM in the emergency department (ED). Policies relating to physician payment, quality measurement, and medical-legal risks each present unique challenges to adoption of SDM in the ED. This article summarizes findings from a health policy breakout session of the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference "Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy-relevant, Patient-centered Research Agenda." The objectives were to 1) describe federal and state policies that influence utilization or assessment of SDM; 2) identify policies and policy-focused knowledge gaps that serve as barriers to adoption of ED SDM; and 3) to define a consensus-based, policy-focused research agenda to support adoption of SDM in emergency care.