Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
DiscussionSpecial Report

The PCORI Engagement Rubric: Promising Practices for Partnering in Research

Susan Sheridan, Suzanne Schrandt, Laura Forsythe; Advisory Panel on Patient Engagement (2013 inaugural panel), Tandrea S. Hilliard and Kathryn A. Paez
The Annals of Family Medicine March 2017, 15 (2) 165-170; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2042
Susan Sheridan
1Patient Engagement, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), Washington, DC
MBA, MIM, DHL
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Suzanne Schrandt
1Patient Engagement, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), Washington, DC
2Patient Engagement, Arthritis Foundation, Atlanta, Georgia
JD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Laura Forsythe
3Evaluation & Analysis, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), Washington, DC
PhD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: lforsythe@PCORI.org
Tandrea S. Hilliard
4American Institutes for Research, Washington, DC
PhD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kathryn A. Paez
4American Institutes for Research, Washington, DC
PhD, RN
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Published eLetters

If you would like to comment on this article, click on Submit a Response to This article, below. We welcome your input.

Submit a Response to This Article
Compose eLetter

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

  • Response to letter from Ahmed, Franco and Nelson
    Kristin Carman
    Published on: 13 April 2017
  • Advancing the PCORI Engagement Rubric
    Syed M. Ahmed
    Published on: 24 March 2017
  • Published on: (13 April 2017)
    Page navigation anchor for Response to letter from Ahmed, Franco and Nelson
    Response to letter from Ahmed, Franco and Nelson
    • Kristin Carman, Director, Patient and Public Engagement
    • Other Contributors:

    We would like to thank the authors of the letter in response to the article "The PCORI Engagement Rubric: Promising Practices for Partnering in Research" for bringing up several important issues that went beyond the scope of the article. The rubric was a developed as a concrete, practical guide, in the early years of PCORI, in the absence of extensive data about most effective strategies to support engagement in research t...

    Show More

    We would like to thank the authors of the letter in response to the article "The PCORI Engagement Rubric: Promising Practices for Partnering in Research" for bringing up several important issues that went beyond the scope of the article. The rubric was a developed as a concrete, practical guide, in the early years of PCORI, in the absence of extensive data about most effective strategies to support engagement in research to help researchers and partners to think about the possibilities for engagement in their work.

    The authors importantly mention the vital "pre-and-post engagement" phases of research. PCORI recognized very early in our existence that communities, the public, and researchers needed additional support and resources to fully participate in user driven research. The PCORI Board of Governors, Methodology Committee, and Patient Engagement Advisory Panel endorsed the development of best practices and several programs to support the Engagement Rubric and "engaged research." Recognizing that patients, communities, and researchers are often not well aligned in their interests, PCORI offers two programs to foster pre- and post- engagement activities. The Eugene Washington PCORI Engagement Award Program accepts applications from communities and researchers at all stages of the research continuum. The program is not meant to fund actual research but to establish the foundation and relationships and skills necessary to prioritize, conduct, and disseminate research. These awards will now also focus on supporting patient engagement in the uptake of findings for healthcare decision making. The Pipeline to Proposal Award Program is specifically targeted to the pre-engagement phase of research and is intended to create those relationships before the conduct of research. To date, PCORI has awarded 200 Eugene Washington Engagement Awards ($38.8 million) and 220 Pipeline to Proposal Awards ($4.9 million) for a total investment to date of over $43 million in these two programs.

    PCORI also supports the public reporting of all PCORI funded research findings in accessible and comprehensible formats. This includes a requirement that all participants in PCORI funded studies be notified of the study's findings. PCORI funded research teams can also apply for dissemination and implementation funds to further spread the findings but must show community and public involvement in those efforts.

    Enhancing the capacity of all participants in the research process is crucial and was a major reason for the development of the above mentioned awards. And as noted, while not the subject of this article, PCORI has developed a variety of mechanisms to support participants' capacities to engage, including training and mentoring to participate in merit and peer review; the creation of engagement officers to work directly with projects to support engagement; and the sharing of promising practices through webinars and conferences. To be sure much more can be done and PCORI is currently extensively mining its portfolio for practice-based tools and findings ripe for sharing with the field.

    We agree with the author's points about ensuring broad stakeholder input in the design, execution and conduct, analysis, and dissemination of a research study is critical. The PCORI Engagement Rubric first began as the PCORI Patient Engagement Rubric and was broadened to reflect the diversity of important stakeholders. The input, particularly of patients and other stakeholders, on the Patient Engagement Advisory Panel was crucial to the refinement of the Rubric. There is more work to come as further refinement and revisions occur.

    It has become clear to PCORI that both researchers and non- researchers need the support and tools to meaningfully collaborate on research. In addition to the programs mentioned above, PCORI is currently developing curriculums on Team Science and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 101 to further enhance the potential for successful partnerships. PCORI will continue to be a leader and innovate on how we support and foster engaged research and we very much appreciate the author's thoughtful remarks.

    The Rubric was developed as a tool to support the inclusion of patients and other stakeholders into the research process. At the time, a conceptual framework to prescribe action was not fully warranted. Currently we are developing the next iteration of the rubric moving towards a framework in how to support people in their interactions with individuals, organizations, institutions, and systems based on We agree with the authors that PCORI awardees' experiences offer valuable learning opportunities for others in the field. PCORI collects information from both awardees and partners about challenges to patient and stakeholder engagement and strategies awardees and partners use to overcome those challenges. These data are used to inform all of our processes, including the development of the new Team Science and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 101 training. We also agree that PCORI has learnings that are valuable for the field. To date, PCORI has shared what it is has learned through publications (e.g., Forsythe, Ellis et al., JGIM 2015) and conference presentations (PCORI Annual Meeting 2016), and PCORI In Practice webinars and will continue to share in the future through additional manuscripts, presentations, webinars, the PCORI website, and other opportunities. We anticipate many near term activities that will enrich these findings and information to the field, and while we will certainly disseminate that information broadly, we also always encourage everyone to engage with PCORI through a variety of available mechanisms and welcome the type of feedback and dialogue the authors have provided.

    Finally, PCORI greatly values the contributions of the Advisory Panel on Patient Engagement to the development of the Rubric. After discussion with the Chair of the Panel, it was determined that the contributions of the Panel to the Rubric and this manuscript were best reflected by listing the committee as a whole, because the work was reflective the group's collective effort. A full listing of the Advisory Panel members is available on PCORI's website: http://www.pcori.org/get-involved/join-advisory-panel/advisory-panel-patient-engagement/biographies-advisory-panel.

    Competing interests: None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (24 March 2017)
    Page navigation anchor for Advancing the PCORI Engagement Rubric
    Advancing the PCORI Engagement Rubric
    • Syed M. Ahmed, Senior Associate Dean for Community Engagement
    • Other Contributors:

    This article succinctly presented the development and implementation of PCORI Engagement Rubric. It is an evolving framework that operationalizes engagement of both patients and larger stakeholders. The PCORI Engagement Rubric effectively utilizes extensive Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) [1] and Community Engaged Research (CEnR) [2] principles, but at the same time advances the science of engagement as it...

    Show More

    This article succinctly presented the development and implementation of PCORI Engagement Rubric. It is an evolving framework that operationalizes engagement of both patients and larger stakeholders. The PCORI Engagement Rubric effectively utilizes extensive Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) [1] and Community Engaged Research (CEnR) [2] principles, but at the same time advances the science of engagement as it relates specifically to patients. PCORI framework establishes a functional platform which makes this engagement rubric flexible.

    Having said that, we have a few comments to share with authors and readers alike:

    As noted in the article, the rubric does not address "pre-engagement" phase of research which is a critical aspect of developing partnerships with patient and stakeholders. This rubric also does not address needs, rationale and strategies for "post-engagement" phase. The unintended and unintentional impact could be the perpetuation of patients/community experience of being abandoned after research is completed.

    Unlike CEnR [2], PCORI Engagement does not address the need for building capacity of both patients and other stakeholders. Enhancing the various capacities, partner's need to conduct effective research helps continue multiple projects over an extended time period. PCORI may well practice this approach in its work, but the processes and procedures used to do so are missing from this article. PCORI's specific case studies and experiences around capacity building would further develop the literature on engagement.

    The PCORI Engagement Rubric is oriented toward researchers as noted by the authors. The next phase of the rubric needs to bring in patients perspectives to develop an advanced rubric or may develop a "mirror" engagement rubric which is patient focused. To this end lies the notion of the importance of input from key stakeholders. Without this input, even well-intentioned research will still be driven by the researchers and may not represent the needs of the patients.

    There is an important need for patient-centeredness and within the context of patient-centeredness are methods that are culturally sensitive and appropriate to the group targeted for the intervention. While the framework presents the patient and stakeholders as key to this work, the approach does not fully contextualize the patient as part of a social system with a community (or set of communities). Further articulation between PCORI's priorities in engagement, and traditional CBPR/CEnR [1,2] approaches would likely improve outcomes, efficiency, and uptake for both types of projects.

    Though the focus of this article was not to explore "challenges" faced by both patients and stakeholders adopting this rubric, it would be valuable to have articles based on these challenges, specifically from PCORI's perspective. CEnR [2] faces challenges of starting, maintaining and ending CEnR [2] programs. There are challenges with sharing resources and responsibilities. PCORI research also must face similar or more complicated challenges; discussion of these cases could be very valuable for both practitioners and learners of this field.

    Lastly, we would suggest naming all the members of the advisory panel on patient engagement, which is noted as co-authors. It shows the acknowledgement of both patients and other stakeholders who have provided the expertise and experience in developing this rubric.

    References
    1. Westfall J, Stevenson J; North American Primary Care Research Group. A guided tour of community-based participatory research: an annotated bibliography. Ann Fam Med. 2007; 5(2):185-186.
    2. Ahmed SM, Palermo AG. Community engagement in research: frameworks for education and peer review. Am J Public Health. 2010; 100(8):1380-1387.

    Syed M. Ahmed, MD, MPH, DrPH, FAAFP
    Zeno Franco, PhD
    David Nelson, PhD, MS
    Office of Senior Associate Dean for Community Engagement
    Medical College of Wisconsin
    8701 Watertown Plank Road, Milwaukee, WI 53226

    Competing interests: None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 15 (2)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 15 (2)
Vol. 15, Issue 2
March/April 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
  • In Brief
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The PCORI Engagement Rubric: Promising Practices for Partnering in Research
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
9 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
The PCORI Engagement Rubric: Promising Practices for Partnering in Research
Susan Sheridan, Suzanne Schrandt, Laura Forsythe, Tandrea S. Hilliard, Kathryn A. Paez
The Annals of Family Medicine Mar 2017, 15 (2) 165-170; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2042

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
The PCORI Engagement Rubric: Promising Practices for Partnering in Research
Susan Sheridan, Suzanne Schrandt, Laura Forsythe, Tandrea S. Hilliard, Kathryn A. Paez
The Annals of Family Medicine Mar 2017, 15 (2) 165-170; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2042
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • APPROACH TO DEVELOPING THE RUBRIC PCORI’s
    • THE PCORI ENGAGEMENT RUBRIC
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Advancing the impact of research through a dissemination-focused special interest group
  • Patient engagement in a Canadian health research funding institute: implementation and impact
  • Exploring the outcomes of research engagement using the observation method in an online setting
  • Advancing Health Equity in Neurologic Disorders and Stroke: Stakeholder Insights Into Health Disparities, Research Gaps, and Potential Interventions
  • Evaluating the Impact of Stakeholder Engagement in a School-Based Type 1 Diabetes Study
  • A Roadmap to Patient Engagement: Facioscapulohumeral Muscular Dystrophy and the ReSolve Clinical Trial
  • Nursing home quality: what matters to patients
  • Taking an integrated knowledge translation approach in research to develop the CONSORT-Equity 2017 reporting guideline: an observational study
  • Co-creation of patient engagement quality guidance for medicines development: an international multistakeholder initiative
  • Evaluating patient and public involvement in research
  • Frequency of reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research studies published in a general medical journal: a descriptive study
  • In This Issue: On-the-Ground Advances & High-Level Influences
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Affirmative Action—A Crack in the Door to Higher Education
  • For AI in Primary Care, Start With the Problem
  • The Odyssey of HOMER: Comparative Effectiveness Research on Medication for Opioid Use Disorder During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Show more Special Report

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Person groups:
    • Vulnerable populations
  • Methods:
    • Qualitative methods
    • Participatory / action research
  • Other research types:
    • Health policy
    • Translational research
  • Core values of primary care:
    • Personalized care
  • Other topics:
    • Research capacity building
    • Patient perspectives
    • Communication / decision making
    • Disparities in health and health care

Keywords

  • patient-centered
  • patient outcomes
  • patient engagement

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Early Access
  • Plain-Language Summaries
  • Multimedia
  • Podcast
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Job Seekers
  • Media

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2025 Annals of Family Medicine