Comparing three approaches for involving patients in research prioritization: a qualitative study of participant experiences

Table 5 SMARTER evaluation survey responses^a

	Crowd-voting	Focus groups	Delphi survey	p-value
N	26	34	63
I understood the tasks I was asked to perform as part of the activity				0.03
0–4 (low)	2	0	0
5–7 (neutral)	5	1	4
8–10 (high)	19	33	59
I was able to ask questions and get feedback from the activity coordinators				0.006
0–4 (low)	3	0	10
5–7 (neutral)	3	0	14
8–10 (high)	20	34	26
I felt different points of view were represented and shared				0.03
0–4 (low)	3	0	2
5–7 (neutral)	3	1	12
8–10 (high)	19	33	48
Opportunities were provided to share opinions that differed from others in the group				0.01
0–4 (low)	3	0	4
5–7 (neutral)	3	0	9
8–10 (high)	20	34	46
I feel the input I provided was valued				0.08
0–4 (low)	4	0	2
5–7 (neutral)	2	2	11
8–10 (high)	20	31	50
My time was well spent on the activity				0.0002
0–4 (low)	3	0	2
5–7 (neutral)	6	1	8
8–10 (high)	17	32	53
I was satisfied with my participation in the activity				0.0001
0–4 (low)	6	0	1
5–7 (neutral)	6	3	9
8–10 (high)	14	30	53
I feel patients should have the opportunity to identify research topics for research				0.03
0–4 (low)	0	0	6
5–7 (neutral)	3	1	9
8–10 (high)	23	31	47
I feel patients should have the opportunity to prioritize research topics for research				0.002
0–4 (low)	1	0	7
5–7 (neutral)	2	3	10
8–10 (high)	23	28	45
Would you agree to participate in future studies to identify & prioritize research topics?^b				0.08
Yes	24	31	58
No	2	0	4

Note: Responses to all evaluation survey questions were not mandatory. Missing responses were excluded from analyses. ^a) p-value determined from Kruskal-Wallis where a p-value <.05 indicates that at least one of the groups is different from the others; ^b) p-value determined from Fisher’s Exact Test

ISSN: 2056-7529