Skip to main content

Table 5 SMARTER evaluation survey responsesa

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

 Crowd-votingFocus groupsDelphi surveyp-value
I understood the tasks I was asked to perform as part of the activity0.03
 0–4 (low)200 
 5–7 (neutral)514 
 8–10 (high)193359 
I was able to ask questions and get feedback from the activity coordinators0.006
 0–4 (low)3010 
 5–7 (neutral)3014 
 8–10 (high)203426 
I felt different points of view were represented and shared0.03
 0–4 (low)302 
 5–7 (neutral)3112 
 8–10 (high)193348 
Opportunities were provided to share opinions that differed from others in the group0.01
 0–4 (low)304 
 5–7 (neutral)309 
 8–10 (high)203446 
I feel the input I provided was valued0.08
 0–4 (low)402 
 5–7 (neutral)2211 
 8–10 (high)203150 
My time was well spent on the activity0.0002
 0–4 (low)302 
 5–7 (neutral)618 
 8–10 (high)173253 
I was satisfied with my participation in the activity0.0001
 0–4 (low)601 
 5–7 (neutral)639 
 8–10 (high)143053 
I feel patients should have the opportunity to identify research topics for research0.03
 0–4 (low)006 
 5–7 (neutral)319 
 8–10 (high)233147 
I feel patients should have the opportunity to prioritize research topics for research0.002
 0–4 (low)107 
 5–7 (neutral)2310 
 8–10 (high)232845 
Would you agree to participate in future studies to identify & prioritize research topics?b0.08
  1. 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