Abstract
Aim: Develop an accessible exercise to engage underserved populations about research funding priorities; analyze the criteria they use to prioritize research; contrast these criteria to those currently used by Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Materials & methods: Academic and community partners collaborated to develop an Ipad exercise to facilitate group deliberation about PCOR funding priorities. 16 groups (n = 183) of underserved individuals in both urban and rural areas participated. Recordings were qualitatively analyzed for prioritization criteria. Results: Analysis yielded ten codes, many of which were similar to PCORI criteria, but all of which challenged or illuminated these criteria. Conclusion: Directly involving underserved populations in determining funding criteria is both feasible and important, and can better fulfill PCORI's goal of incorporating patient priorities.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 449-459 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research |
| Volume | 6 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jul 2017 |
Keywords
- decision-making
- minority groups
- patient-centered outcomes research
- public deliberation
- research priorities
- resource allocation
- underserved populations
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Show me the money An analysis of underserved stakeholders' funding priorities in Patient Centered Outcomes Research domains'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver