This document summarizes the process of developing a comparative effectiveness research question using a community-centered approach. A community advisory board was created with researchers and community members to identify important problems related to type 2 diabetes. The board conducted brainstorming sessions to generate potential solutions and developed a survey to assess community priorities. Next steps involve pilot testing different technologies and gathering feedback to design a comprehensive intervention for testing. Lessons learned include scheduling meetings for maximum participation, continuously educating about comparative effectiveness research, and leveraging community organizations.

1. A Community Centered Approach
to the Development of a
Comparative Effectiveness
Research Question
Bryan Gibson, DPT, PhD
Elisa Amador
Ana Sanchez Birkhead, PhD
Nancy Allen, APRN, PhD

2. Background
Comparative effectiveness research – the direct
comparison of existing healthcare interventions to
determine which works best for which patients and
which pose the greatest benefits and harms
Which treatment works best, for whom, under what
circumstances

3. PCORI – Pipeline to proposal
Tier I - seed money to individuals and groups who have
healthcare research ideas and who believe in the
promise of patient-centered research-- community-
building and engagement projects.
Tier II -develop research capacity, create new
partnerships, and build the infrastructure needed to
conduct research.

4. Tier 1- creation of CAB
Creation of a community advisory board (CAB)
U of U researchers
community representatives
community members

5. Tier 1- creation of CAB
several meetings :
What is patient centered outcomes research ?
What is comparative effectiveness research ?
What are the specific goals of this project ?

6. Development of potential
questions
CAB members/community members affected by type 2
diabetes first told their “Diabetes stories”
Group reviewed each story to distill out the problems
faced
collaborative brainstorming session of potential solutions
Based on interests/expertise focused on technology to
support

7. Community Survey
Used table of problems - potential solutions to develop
conjoint survey (marketing type survey to look at
desired features)
Survey completed by 135 community members on iPad
delivered by community health workers

8. Next steps
Pilot testing of different technologies
IPad with apps
Activity monitor
Continuous glucose monitor
What works well? What is missing? What should be
integrated together into a comprehensive intervention
we can test?

9. Lessons learned
Meeting time- evenings only for community members,
day for non profit representatives
Education- continuous reorientation to what is
PCOR/CER?
Keeping people engaged- combine support meeting with
research meeting
Community organizations critical to success

10. Acknolwedgements
This project is supported by the patient centered
oucomes research institute Tier I and Tier 2 funding
(7737210)