Study of Methods for Assessing Research Topic Elicitation and Prioritization (SMARTER) [Methods Study], United States, 2014-2018 (ICPSR 39562)
Version Date: Nov 24, 2025 View help for published
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s)
Danielle Lavallee, University of Washington
https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR39562.v1
Version V1
Summary View help for Summary
Organizations that fund research often seek input on which topics are important to study. Patients can take part in setting priorities for research to help make sure that future studies focus on the topics that matter most to them. Researchers can collect patients' views on which research topics are most important in different ways.
In this study, the research team compared three methods of research priority setting:
- Online crowd voting, where patients submit, discuss, and vote on ideas online
- Focus groups with nominal group technique, where patients come up with ideas on their own and then discuss those ideas in a group with a moderator
- Modified Delphi method, where patients give input through a series of mailed surveys
The research team looked at research topic rankings and experiences with each method among patients with low back pain.
Citation View help for Citation
Export Citation:
Funding View help for Funding
Subject Terms View help for Subject Terms
Geographic Coverage View help for Geographic Coverage
Distributor(s) View help for Distributor(s)
Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose
SMARTER (Study of Methods for Assessing Research Topic Elicitation and prioritization) had 2 objectives: (1) Evaluate how patient engagement methods compare in producing research priorities and participant satisfaction; and (2) determine if patient demographics and disease severity influence participation in research activities.
Study Design View help for Study Design
This cross-sectional study examined the level of agreement in research priorities generated by three common, interactive research prioritization methods and compared participant evaluations of each method.
In the first phase of the project, people who were part of a large registry of patients ages 65 and older with low back pain or part of a large crowdsourcing platform generated a list of research topics. The second phase of the project included 151 participants who were part of this registry and received care from large healthcare systems in Michigan and Northern California. Researchers randomly assigned participants to one of three groups:
Online crowd voting, which used an online platform where participants submit ideas, vote on existing ideas, and interact with others through online discussion Focus groups with nominal group technique, which combined individual idea generation with moderated, interactive group discussion Modified Delphi method, which used a series of mailed surveys to obtain input from respondents.
To address potential barriers to participation, researchers used preference-based randomization, asking participants to rank the methods in order of preference and weighting their group assignment probability by preference.
Participants in all three groups received the list of research topics from phase 1 and prioritized them. In the online crowd voting group, 38 participants discussed and voted on priorities over six weeks. In the focus groups, 39 participants, split into six groups, produced priority lists after multiple rounds of discussion.
In the Delphi method group, 74 participants received a paper-based survey and rated the importance of each priority on a five-point Likert scale, indicating which priorities they thought were the most and least important. After receiving these responses, researchers sent participants a summary of the group's rankings and feedback. Participants reviewed the rankings and revised their priority list, if desired.
All participants received an evaluation survey that asked about their experience with and the perceived effectiveness of the prioritization method.
A patient advisor was a member of the research team. In addition, a patient advisory group provided input throughout the study.
Universe View help for Universe
Patients ages 65 and older with low back pain based in United States
Data Source View help for Data Source
Data from patients with low back pain
Notes
The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.
ICPSR usually offers files in multiple formats for researchers to be able to access data and documentation in formats that work well within their needs. If you have questions about the accessibility of materials distributed by ICPSR or require further assistance, please visit ICPSR’s Accessibility Center.