The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement
Open accessAbstract
Aims:Stakeholder engagement is fundamental to comparative effectiveness research (CER), but lacks consistent terminology. This paper aims to define stakeholder engagement and present a conceptual model for involving stakeholders in CER.Materials & methods:The definitions and model were developed from a literature search, expert input and experience with the Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research in Cancer Genomics, a proof-of-concept platform for stakeholder involvement in priority setting and CER study design.Results:Definitions for stakeholder and stakeholder engagement reflect the target constituencies and their role in CER. The ‘analytic-deliberative’ conceptual model for stakeholder engagement illustrates the inputs, methods and outputs relevant to CER. The model differentiates methods at each stage of the project; depicts the relationship between components; and identifies outcome measures for evaluation of the process.Conclusion:While the definitions and model require testing before being broadly adopted, they are an important foundational step and will be useful for investigators, funders and stakeholder groups interested in contributing to CER.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Democratizing clinical research
Lloyd, K., & White, J. (2011) · Nature · doi:10.1038/474277a · Cited by 112
Comparative effectiveness research: a progress report.
Sox, H. C. (2010) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-153-7-201010050-00269 · Cited by 75
Cited by
Greenhalgh, T., Hinton, L., Finlay, T., Macfarlane, A., Fahy, N., Clyde, B., & Chant, A. (2019) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12888 · Cited by 1,059
Evaluating patient and stakeholder engagement in research: moving from theory to practice
Esmail, L., Moore, E., & Rein, A. (2015) · Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research · doi:10.2217/cer.14.79 · Cited by 502
Self-citationFrank, L., Forsythe, L., Ellis, L., Schrandt, S., Sheridan, S., Gerson, J., Konopka, K., & Daugherty, S. (2015) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-014-0893-3 · Cited by 288
Harrison, J. D., Auerbach, A. D., Anderson, W., Fagan, M., Carnie, M., Hanson, C., Banta, J., Symczak, G., Robinson, E., Schnipper, J., et al. (2019) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12873 · Cited by 286
Tricco, A. C., Zarin, W., Rios, P., Nincic, V., Khan, P. A., Ghassemi, M., Diaz, S., Pham, B., Straus, S. E., & Langlois, E. V. (2018) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-018-0717-x · Cited by 100
“Engagement can be defined as “an iterative process of actively soliciting the knowledge, experience, judgment and values of individuals selected to represent a broad range of direct interests in a particular issue, for the dual purposes of: creating a shared understanding [and] making relevant, transparent and effecti…”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Deverka, P. A., Lavallee, D. C., Desai, P. J., Esmail, L. C., Ramsey, S. D., Veenstra, D. L., & Tunis, S. R.
- Venue
- Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
- Publisher
- Becaris Publishing Limited
- Published
- 2012-03
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 181-194
- ISSN
- 2042-6305 (ISSN-L)
- 2042-6313
- OpenAlex
- W2112939849
- Cited by
- 358
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 20.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2217/cer.12.7
- The paper
- Deverka, P. A., Lavallee, D. C., Desai, P. J., Esmail, L. C., Ramsey, S. D., Veenstra, D. L., & Tunis, S. R. (2012). Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. https://doi.org/10.2217/cer.12.7
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
