Researcher and partner perspectives on the relationship between engagement in research and three uses of patient-centered comparative clinical effectiveness research study findings.

Background: The uptake of research findings into clinical practice is critical to providing health care that improves health outcomes for patients. This study explored how Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) awardees perceive the relationship between engagement of patients and other partners in research and three uses, or applications, of patient-centered comparative clinical effectiveness research (CER) study findings, which may lead to uptake in clinical practice: (1) Integration into clinical practice guidelines, recognized point-of-care decision tools, or documents that may inform policy; (2) Implementation beyond the study, including at sites outside of the study setting or patient populations; and (3) Active dissemination of findings to specific audiences by parties external to the study team.

Methods: This exploratory qualitative study examined awardee and partner perceptions of what led to each use of study findings and how engaged partners contributed.

Examining how study teams manage different viewpoints and priorities in patient-centered outcomes research: Results of an embedded multiple case study.

Introduction: Limited evidence exists about which patient and stakeholder engagement practices support or hinder study teams as they negotiate different viewpoints in decisions about the design and conduct of patient-centered outcomes research.

Methods: We applied a multiple-embedded descriptive case study design for six studies funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). We interviewed 32 researchers and stakeholder partners, including patients, caregivers and clinicians, and reviewed documents related to each study (e.

Patient Acceptance of Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants in Rheumatology Care.

Objective: To assess whether patients with autoimmune disease would accept advanced practice providers (APPs) as an option to fill the growing shortage of rheumatologists.

Methods: We administered a cross-sectional survey to 500 patients or parents of children who reported having been diagnosed with qualifying autoimmune conditions and who had seen their primary rheumatology providers in the past 6 months. Respondents self-reported whether their primary providers were rheumatologists or APPs.