advisory panel application, review, and selection process report … · 2015-08-17 · advisory...
TRANSCRIPT
Contents I. Background .................................................................................................................................................................... 2
II. Open Call for Applications .............................................................................................................................................. 4
III. Reviewing Applications .................................................................................................................................................. 5
IV. Review and Approval by Board of Governors .............................................................................................................. 10
Appendix A: Advisory Panel Review Sheets .......................................................................................................................... 12
Appendix B: Advisory Panel Application Fields ..................................................................................................................... 19
Appendix C: Characteristics of Applicant Pool ...................................................................................................................... 31
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 1
I. Background
The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is authorized by Congress to appoint permanent or ad hoc advisory panels, as determined appropriate. PCORI advisory panels do not serve in an official decision-making capacity, but their recommendations and advice are taken into consideration by our staff, Board, and Methodology Committee in modeling robust patient and stakeholder engagement efforts, refining and prioritizing specific research questions, providing other scientific or technical expertise, and providing input on other questions that may arise relevant to the Institute’s mission and work. Panels must include representatives from the following groups: practicing and research clinicians; patients; experts in scientific and health services research, health services delivery, and evidence-based medicine who have experience in the relevant topic; and, as appropriate, experts in integrative health and primary prevention strategies. Other members of the healthcare community may also be included, such as industry representatives and policy makers.
On December 3, 2013, PCORI’s Board of Governors (BOG) approved revised charters for the following advisory panels:
• Advisory Panel on Assessment of Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment Options• Advisory Panel on Improving Healthcare Systems• Advisory Panel on Addressing Disparities• Advisory Panel on Patient Engagement
These revised charters indicated the introduction of staggered terms (one, two, or three years), which were assigned to each panelist and approved by the BOG in February 2014. Thus, members who were assigned a one-year term were rolling off these panels, and a call was made for candidates to apply to all four panels. Moving forward, as indicated in the panel charters, new members will serve three-year terms.
On April 21, 2015, PCORI’s BOG approved revised charters for the following advisory panels:
• Advisory Panel on Clinical Trials• Advisory Panel on Rare Disease
These revised charters were modified to match the above-mentioned four charters, and therefore introduced staggered terms, which then needed to be assigned to each member. Additionally, PCORI staff identified the need for an additional patient representative on the Advisory Panel on Rare Disease, so a call was made for candidates to apply to this panel. PCORI staff did not identify any openings for the Advisory Panel on Clinical Trials.
On January 27, 2015, PCORI’s Board of Governors (BOG) approved the charters for the new Advisory Panel on Communication and Dissemination Research. Thus, a call was made for candidates to apply to this panel.
This document summarizes the application and selection process that PCORI followed to fill panel openings. The openings are summarized in Table 1.
1 Available at pcori.org/get-involved/advisory-panels 2 Available at pcori.org/get-involved/advisory-panels
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 2
Table 1: Advisory Panel Openings in 2015
Advisory Panel Open Positions
Applicant Profile Length of Term
Assessment of Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment Options
Up to 4
Preference for the following stakeholder groups:
• Patients• Clinicians• Researchers• Industry
Applicants representing other stakeholder groups are also welcome to apply.
3 Years
Improving Healthcare Systems Up to 5
Preference for the following stakeholder groups:
• Patients• Clinicians• Researchers• Payers
Applicants representing other stakeholder groups are also welcome to apply.
3 Years
Addressing Disparities Up to 6 No preference will be given to particular stakeholder
groups. 3 Years
Patient Engage-ment Up to 6
Preference for the following stakeholder groups:
• Patients• Clinicians
3 Years
Rare Disease 1
Preference for the following stakeholder groups:
• Patients
Applicants representing other stakeholder groups are also welcome to apply.
1 or 2 years
Communi-cation and Dissemina-tion Research
12 to 21 No preference will be given to particular stakeholder groups.
1, 2, or 3 years
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 3
II. Open Call for Applications
An open call for applications was announced through our website, email communication, and other channels. PCORI reached out to previous applicants (from the 2014 cycle) to confirm their continued interest, and invited organizations to nominate new individuals and new candidates to apply.
The online application form took approximately 10 to 20 minutes to complete. It included a series of multiple-choice and open-form questions. Applicants were required to provide a personal statement (250 to 500 words) that clearly described their background, experience, degree to which expertise and background could improve our work, and reasons for applying. Applicants had the option to provide supportive documents (resume/curriculum vitae/list of relevant experience). See Appendix B: Advisory Panel Application Fields for a complete list of these fields. Applicants had the option to indicate if they wished to be considered for multiple panels and were prompted to rank selected panels in order of preference. This order was used in the event two or more advisory panel review teams wanted to select the same applicant.
PCORI also accepted third-party nominations. Any organization wishing to make nominations could submit a nomination letter, CV/resume of the nominee(s), and brief bio(s) and letters of endorsement. PCORI contacted nominees if additional information was needed. The deadline to submit third-party nominations was 5 p.m. ET on January 30, 2015 for all panels, except the inaugural panel on Communication and Dissemination Research where we provided more time to applicants. The deadline to submit third-party nominations for the Advisory Panel on Communication and Dissemination Research was February 16, 2015 at 5 p.m. ET.
Applications were considered if a completed application was received by 5 p.m. ET on February 6, 2015 for all panels, except the inaugural panel on Communication and Dissemination Research where again we provided more time to applicants. The deadline to submit a full application for the Advisory Panel on Communication and Dissemination Research was February 23, 2015 at 5 p.m. ET. Applicants who could not submit a complete application by the stated deadline, comply with PCORI’s conflict of interest policy, or attend the scheduled Advisory Panel spring 2015 meetings were excluded from consideration.
As shown in Figure 1, the pool of candidates in this cycle of selection included 770 individuals, including 52 third-party nominations.
See Appendix C: Characteristics of Applicant Pool for additional details.
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 4
Figure 1: Characteristics of Candidate Pool
Reviewing Applications
PCORI reviewed all applications and nominations with an eye toward developing balanced, inclusive panels. The review process was divided into three tiers, shown in Figure 2. This open, transparent, and rigorous process achieved the desired balance between expertise and demographics on each panel. Alternates were also selected to be nominated in the event one or more of the proposed panelists declined PCORI's invitation to serve on one of the advisory panels.
Figure 2: Three-Tiered Review Process
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 5
Review Teams
Each advisory panel support staff developed advisory panel review teams. Each team had diverse PCORI representation. To mitigate potential conflicts of interest, team members were required to recuse themselves from evaluation of any applicants with whom they had a close professional or personal association. Each application was reviewed by at least two staff members. Team members are listed below by panel and tier.
Advisory
Panel Tier 1
Review Team Tier 2
Review Team Tier 3
Review Team Assessment of Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment Options
Yen-Pin Chiang Associate Director,
Clinical Effectiveness Research, PCORI
Kim Bailey Engagement Officer, Engagement, PCORI
Diane Bild Senior Program Officer,
Clinical Effectiveness Research, PCORI Jana Lynn Louis
Program Associate, Clinical Effectiveness Research, PCORI
Julie McCormack Program Officer, Clinical
Effectiveness Research, PCORI Sandi Myers
Program Assistant, Clinical Effectiveness Research, PCORI
Stanley Ip Senior Program Officer, Clinical Effectiveness Research, PCORI
Danielle Whicher Program Officer, Clinical
Effectiveness Research, PCORI Anne Trontell
Senior Program Officer, Clinical Effectiveness Research, PCORI
Yen-Pin Chiang Associate Director, Clinical
Effectiveness Research, PCORI
Kim Bailey Engagement Officer, Clinical Effectiveness
Research, PCORI Diane Bild
Senior Program Officer, Clinical Effectiveness
Research, PCORI Jana Lynn Louis
Program Associate, Clinical Effectiveness Research, PCORI
Julie McCormack Program Officer, Clinical Effectiveness
Research, PCORI Sandi Myers
Program Assistant, Clinical Effectiveness Research, PCORI
Stanley Ip Senior Program Officer, Clinical Effectiveness Research, PCORI
Danielle Whicher Program Officer, Clinical Effectiveness
Research, PCORI Anne Trontell
Senior Program Officer, Clinical Effectiveness Research, PCORI
David Hickam Program Director, Clinical
Effectiveness Research, PCORI
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 6
Improving Healthcare Systems
Lauren Azar Senior Program Associate,
Improving Healthcare Systems, PCORI Annie Bollini
Senior Merit Review Officer, Merit Review, PCORI
Ashton Burton Contracts Specialist, Pre-
Award, Contracts Management and
Administration Alex Hartzman
Program Associate, Improving Healthcare Systems, PCORI
Kaitlin Hayes Intern, Improving Healthcare
Systems, PCORI Hannah Kampmeyer Senior Administrative Assistant, Improving
Healthcare Systems, PCORI
Neeraj Arora Program Officer, Improving Healthcare Systems, PCORI
Lynn Disney Senior Program Officer, Improving
Healthcare Systems, PCORI Penny Mohr
Program Officer, Improving Healthcare Systems, PCORI
Steven Clauser Program Director, Improving Healthcare Systems, PCORI
Addressing Disparities
Ayodola Anise
Program Officer, Addressing Disparities, PCORI
Mira Greiser Program Officer, Addressing
Disparities, PCORI Katie Lewis
Senior Program Associate, Addressing Disparities, PCORI
Mychal Weinert
Program Associate, Addressing Disparities, PCORI
Ayodola Anise Program Officer, Addressing
Disparities, PCORI Mira Greiser
Program Officer, Addressing Disparities, PCORI
Katie Lewis Senior Program Associate,
Addressing Disparities, PCORI Mychal Weinert
Program Associate, Addressing Disparities, PCORI
Romana Hasnain-Wynia
Program Director, Addressing Disparities,
PCORI
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 7
Patient Engagement
Kim Bailey Engagement Officer, Engagement, PCORI
Michelle Johnson-Fleece Engagement Officer, Engagement, PCORI
Aingyea Kellom
Program Associate, Patient Engagement, PCORI
Shivonne Laird Engagement Officer, Engagement, PCORI
Sue Sheridan Director, Patient
Engagement, PCORI Suzanne Schrandt
Deputy Director, Patient Engagement, PCORI
Makina Table Program Associate,
Patient Engagement, PCORI
Melanie Thompson Senior Program
Assistant, Patient Engagement, PCORI
Kim Bailey Engagement Officer, Engagement, PCORI
Michelle Johnson-Fleece Engagement Officer, Engagement, PCORI
Aingyea Kellom
Program Associate, Patient Engagement, PCORI
Shivonne Laird Engagement Officer, Engagement, PCORI
Sue Sheridan Director, Patient Engagement,
PCORI Suzanne Schrandt
Deputy Director, Patient Engagement, PCORI
Makina Table Program Associate,
Patient Engagement, PCORI
Melanie Thompson Senior Program
Assistant, Patient
Sue Sheridan
Director, Patient Engagement, PCORI
Rare Disease Emma Djabali Program Associate, Office of the
Chief Science Officer, PCORI Lia Hotchkiss
Director, Eugene Washington Engagement Awards, PCORI
Aingyea Kellom Program Associate, Patient
Engagement, PCORI Greg Martin
Deputy Director, Stakeholder Engagement, PCORI
Kara Odom Walker Deputy Chief Science Officer, PCORI
Meheret Shumet Administrative Assistant, Office of
the Chief Science Officer, PCORI Victoria Szydlowski
Program Associate, Evaluation and Analysis, PCORI
Dan Tisch Manager, Science Operations,
PCORI Sarita Wahba
Program Officer, Comparative Effectiveness Research Methods
and Infrastructure, PCORI
Emma Djabali Program Associate, Office of the Chief
Science Officer, PCORI Lia Hotchkiss
Director, Eugene Washington Engagement Awards, PCORI
Aingyea Kellom Program Associate, Patient
Engagement, PCORI Greg Martin
Deputy Director, Stakeholder Engagement, PCORI
Kara Odom Walker Deputy Chief Science Officer, PCORI
Meheret Shumet Administrative Assistant, Office of the
Chief Science Officer, PCORI Victoria Szydlowski
Program Associate, Evaluation and Analysis, PCORI
Dan Tisch Manager, Science Operations, PCORI
Sarita Wahba Program Officer, Comparative
Effectiveness Research Methods and Infrastructure, PCORI
Ayodola Anise Program Officer,
Addressing Disparities, PCORI
Bryan Luce Chief Science Officer, PCORI
Kara Odom Walker Deputy Chief Science Officer,
PCORI Danielle Whicher
Program Officer, Comparative Effectiveness
Research Methods and Infrastructure, PCORI
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 8
Communication and Dissemination Research
Sarah Chew Program Assistant,
Communication and Dissemination Research,
PCORI Yen-Pin Chiang
Associate Director, Clinical Effectiveness
Research, PCORI Bridget Gaglio Program Officer,
Communication and Dissemination Research,
PCORI Chris Gayer
Program Officer, Communication and Dissemination Research, PCORI
Michelle Henton Program Associate,
Communication and Dissemination Research,
PCORI Shivonne Laird
Engagement Officer, Engagement, PCORI Kim Marschhauser
Merit Review Officer, Merit Review, PCORI
Program Officer, Communication and
Dissemination Research, PCORI
Bridget Gaglio Program Officer,
Communication and Dissemination Research,
PCORI Chris Gayer
Program Officer, Communication and Dissemination Research, PCORI
Sarah Greene Senior Program Officer, CER Methods and Infrastructure
Program, PCORI Michelle Henton Program Associate,
Communication and Dissemination Research,
PCORI Kim Marschhauser
Merit Review Officer, Merit Review, PCORI
Jean Slutsky Chief Engagement and Dissemination
Officer
Selection Criteria
Selection criteria were used to evaluate an applicant’s experience and ability to contribute to each panel’s specific scope of work. The strength of a candidate’s articulated background, experience, the degree to which expertise and background could improve PCORI’s work, and reasons for applying to serve on a specific panel were evaluated in reference to the other applicants.
Tier 1: Applicants were reviewed against a common set of criteria (see Appendix A: Advisory Panel Review Sheets) built to evaluate each applicant’s basic merit and potential value to PCORI. Using the grading scale shown below, each team member attributed one of three tags, “Yes,” “No,” or “Maybe,” to each application they reviewed.
Grading Scale (points) Tags >27 Yes
12 to 27 Maybe <12 No
Since each application was reviewed by two review team members, each application was attributed two tags to determine which applications would be reviewed in Tier 2:
Tag 1 Tag 2 Application to Tier 2? (Y/N) Yes Yes Y
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 9
Yes Maybe Y Yes No N
Tier 2: Applicants were reviewed against panel-specific sets of criteria (see Appendix A: Advisory Panel Review Sheets). In the interest of consistency, different sets of criteria were established for each stakeholder group. We recognize that individuals from all stakeholder categories offer valuable perspectives and expertise to contribute to the work of the advisory panels, and applicants from each group also embody differing competencies that cannot be compared between groups. Since each application was reviewed by two review team members, each application was attributed two tags to determine which applications would be reviewed in Tier 3:
Tag 1 Tag 2 Application to Tier 3? (Y/N) Yes Yes Y Yes Maybe N Yes No N
Tier 3: Balancing criteria were used during Tier 3 of the review process to evaluate each applicant’s experience and ability to contribute to each panel’s specific scope of work. We thoroughly reviewed each application and evaluated each applicant holistically, seeking geographic, institutional, racial, experiential, and gender diversity. Although complete sociodemographic information was not required of each applicant, such information, when provided, was considered when accounting for balance and representation of diverse populations. The review teams sought to ensure that potential nominees reflected a fair representation of minority or underrepresented patient populations, including patients with rare conditions or diseases.
The review teams identified 47 prospective panelists and 19 alternate candidates across all 6 panels. The number of proposed and alternative panelists per panel is shown below.
Advisory Panel Number of Proposed
Panelists Number of Alternates
Assessment of Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment Options
4 4
Improving Healthcare Systems 6 5 Addressing Disparities 7 4 Patient Engagement 7 2 Communication and Dissemination Research
21 3
Rare Disease 2 1
III. Review and Approval by Board of Governors
The names of proposed panel members and alternate panel members were submitted to PCORI’s Board of Governors for review and approval during public webinar/teleconferences held on April 21, 2015. The proposed panels were approved by the Board. Selected nominees were informed of their nomination and given time to accept or decline. They all accepted. Appendix D: Diversity of PCORI's Advisory Panels
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 10
summarizes the diversity of each panel.3
The Communication and Dissemination and Rare Disease support staff made decisions regarding the term length of each of the new panelists. The only guideline was that the panels should always remain diverse and balanced and respect the terms of the charters. With these objectives in mind, panelists were appointed to staggered terms of one, two, or three years. All other new panelists were appointed to three-year terms.
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 11
Appendix A: Advisory Panel Review Sheets
Tier 1 Review Sheet: Basic Merit and Potential Value to PCORI
Criteria Grading 1 2 3 4
Total
Quality of Personal Statement or Letter
of Nomination
Uniqueness Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Clarity Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Expressed commitment Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Potential to Contribute to
PCORI’s Mission
Understanding of PCORI’s mission Weak Average Strong Very Strong Interest in PCOR Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Communication and feedback pathways into community Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Familiarity or training in scientific research methods1 Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Experience in patient/stakeholder engagement Weak Average Strong Very Strong Experience in research prioritization exercises Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Quality of Nomination
(If such documents are included in
application)
Does the nominating organization represent a key constituency? No = 0 Yes = 1
Is the nominating organization relevant to the Advisory Panel’s subject matter? No = 0 Yes = 1
Is the scope of the nominating organization’s reach into its segment of the healthcare community significant? No = 0 Yes = 1
Total
Rating Summary (1-2 Sentences)
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 12
Tier 2 Review Sheet: Advisory Panel on Assessment of Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment Options
Assessment of Prevention,
Diagnosis, and Treatment
Options Stakeholders
Criteria Grading
Patient Representative
Experience in implementing engagement strategies regarding clinical problems for which there are treatment options Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Researcher
Experience in comparative effectiveness research Weak Average Strong Very Strong Experience in measuring patient-centered outcomes Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Experience in research methodology Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Potential to identify important gaps in existing evidence about CER Weak Average Strong Very Strong Experience in evidence-based medicine Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Experience in primary prevention Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Clinician
Experience in comparative effectiveness research Weak Average Strong Very Strong Experience in clinical applications of CER Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Experience in measuring patient-centered outcomes Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Experience in implementing change in CER Weak Average Strong Very Strong Experience in research methodology Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Potential to identify important gaps in existing evidence about CER Weak Average Strong Very Strong Experience practicing medicine Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Other Stakeholders
Familiarity with or experience in comparative effectiveness research Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Experience in clinical quality improvement Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Experience in implementing change in CER Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Rating Summary (1-2 Sentences)
Decision YES ALTERNATE NO
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 13
Tier 2 Review Sheet: Advisory Panel on Improving Healthcare Systems
Improving Healthcare Systems Stakeholders Criteria Grading
Patient Representative Experience in developing partnerships and engagement strategies in health care Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Researcher
Familiarity or training in health services research Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Experience in conducting health services research Weak Average Strong Very Strong Experience in measuring patient-centered outcomes Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Experience in implementing change in healthcare systems Weak Average Strong Very Strong Experience in developing partnerships and engagement strategies in health care Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Potential to identify important gaps in existing evidence about IHS Weak Average Strong Very Strong Experience in evidence-based medicine Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Experience in primary prevention Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Clinician
Familiarity or training in health services research Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Experience in conducting health services research Weak Average Strong Very Strong Experience in measuring patient-centered outcomes Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Experience in implementing change in healthcare systems Weak Average Strong Very Strong Experience in developing partnerships and engagement strategies in health care Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Potential to identify important gaps in existing evidence about IHS Weak Average Strong Very Strong Experience practicing medicine Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Other Stakeholders
Familiarity with or experience in health services research Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Experience in developing partnerships and engagement strategies in health care Weak Average Strong Very Strong Experience in implementing change in healthcare systems Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Expertise in health services delivery Weak Average Strong Very Strong Potential to identify important gaps in existing evidence about IHS Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Rating Summary (1-2 Sentences)
Decision YES ALTERNATE NO
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 14
Tier 2 Review Sheet: Advisory Panel on Addressing Disparities
Stakeholder Group Criteria Grading
Patient/Caregiver Representative
Familiarity or experience with disparities populations and/or disparities research Weak Average Strong Very Strong Experience in developing partnerships and engagement strategies Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Lived experience that could help inform discussion Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Researcher
Familiarity or experience with disparities populations and/or disparities research Weak Average Strong Very Strong Experience in developing partnerships and engagement strategies Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Experience in measuring patient-centered outcomes Weak Average Strong Very Strong Experience implementing change in healthcare disparities Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Experience in research methodology Weak Average Strong Very Strong Potential to identify important gaps in existing evidence about disparities Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Experience in evidence-based medicine Weak Average Strong Very Strong Experience in primary prevention Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Clinician
Familiarity or experience with disparities populations and/or disparities research Weak Average Strong Very Strong Experience in developing partnerships and engagement strategies Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Experience in measuring patient-centered outcomes Weak Average Strong Very Strong Experience in implementing change in healthcare disparities Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Experience in research methodology Weak Average Strong Very Strong Potential to identify important gaps in existing evidence about disparities Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Experience practicing medicine (specifically in safety-net communities) Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Other Stakeholders
Familiarity or experience with disparities populations and/or disparities research Weak Average Strong Very Strong Experience in developing partnerships and engagement strategies Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Experience in implementing change in healthcare disparities Weak Average Strong Very Strong Potential to identify important gaps in existing evidence about disparities Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Rating Summary (1-2 Sentences)
Decision YES ALTERNATE NO
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 15
Tier 2 Review Sheet: Advisory Panel on Patient Engagement
Criteria Grading
Is the candidate a current patient partner in a PCORI-funded project? Yes No
Experience in patient engagement in research or Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Established communication and feedback pathways into his/her community Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Potential to contribute to the purpose of the Advisory Panel Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Involvement in the development of patient-centered clinical trials Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Involvement in the development of processes or frameworks that involve multi-stakeholders in patient-centered research Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Involvement in a data research network and data sharing/privacy policy development Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Rating Summary (1-2 Sentences)
Decision YES ALTERNATE NO
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 16
Tier 2 Review Sheet: Advisory Panel on Communication and Dissemination Research
Communication and Dissemination
Stakeholders Criteria Grading
Patient Representative Experience in developing partnerships and engagement strategies in health care Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Familiarity of health communication issues Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Researcher
Experience in comparative effectiveness research Weak Average Strong Very Strong Experience in measuring patient-centered outcomes Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Experience in research methodology Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Potential to identify important gaps in existing evidence about communication and dissemination research Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Experience in health literacy, numeracy, and/or risk communication Weak Average Strong Very Strong Experience in dissemination and implementation research Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Experience in decision sciences with understanding or experience with decision aids and/or tools Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Clinician
Experience in comparative effectiveness research Weak Average Strong Very Strong Experience in clinical applications of communication and dissemination research Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Experience in measuring patient-centered outcomes Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Experience in implementation science Weak Average Strong Very Strong Experience in research methodology Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Experience with shared decision making Weak Average Strong Very Strong Potential to identify important gaps in existing evidence about communication and
dissemination research Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Experience practicing medicine Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Other Stakeholders
Familiarity with or experience in comparative effectiveness research Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Familiarity with or experience in communication and dissemination research Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Experience in developing partnerships and engagement strategies in health care Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Experience in implementing change in healthcare systems as it relates to communication and dissemination research Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Potential to identify important gaps in existing evidence about communication and dissemination research Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Rating Summary (1-2 Sentences)
Decision YES ALTERNATE NO
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 17
Tier 2 Review Sheet: Advisory Panel on Rare Disease
Rare Disease Criteria Grading
Patient Representative Experience implementing engagement strategies in rare disease communities Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Familiarity with or experience with rare disease communities and/or rare disease research Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Technical Expert
Experience with scientific and health services research on rare diseases Weak Average Strong Very Strong Experience in measuring patient-centered outcomes Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Potential to identify important gaps in existing evidence in rare diseases Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Experience in implementing change in healthcare systems Weak Average Strong Very Strong Experience in evidence-based medicine Weak Average Strong Very Strong Experience in the life sciences industry Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Other Stakeholder
Familiarity with or experience with rare disease communities and/or rare disease research Weak Average Strong Very Strong Experience in implementing change in healthcare systems Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Potential to identify important gaps in existing evidence in rare diseases Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Experience in integrative health and primary prevention strategies Weak Average Strong Very Strong
Rating Summary (1-2 Sentences)
Decision YES ALTERNATE NO
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 18
Appendix B: Advisory Panel Application Fields
Field Question Type
Answer Options (if applicable) Required/ Optional
First Name Text Box Required Middle Initial Text Box Required Last Name Text Box Required Address Text Box Required City Text Box Required Zip Code Text Box Required State/Province/Region Multiple
Choice Required
Country Multiple Choice
Required
Primary Phone Number Text Box Required Alternate Phone Number Text Box Optional Primary E-mail Address Text Box Required Secondary E-mail Address Text Box Optional Assistant Contact Information
• Full Name• Email Address• Phone Number
Text Box Optional
Gender Multiple Choice
• Female• Male• Prefer not to disclose
Required
Age in Years Multiple Choice
• Under 25• 25 to 49• 50 to 64• 65 +• Prefer not to disclose
Required
Race/Ethnicity Multiple Choice
• Asian/Pacific Islander• Black/African-American• Caucasian/White• Native American/Alaska
Native• Other/Multi-Racial• Prefer not to disclose
Required
Are you Hispanic/Latino? Multiple Choice
• Yes• No• Prefer not to disclose
Required
Current Employer Text Box Required Current Position Text Box Required
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 19
Are you currently employed by the federal government? Note: For the United States, this includes dual appointments with VA hospitals.
Multiple Choice
• Yes• No
Required
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 20
Are you a United States citizen?
Multiple Choice
• Yes• No
Required
Are you a resident of the United States?
Multiple Choice
• Yes• No
Required
What is your highest level of education?
Multiple Choice
• High School (1-4years, no degree)
• High SchoolDegree (orequivalent)
• Some College (1-4 years, nodegree)
• Associate’sDegree (includingoccupational oracademicdegrees)
• Bachelor’s Degree(BA, BS, AB, etc.)
• Master’s Degree(MA, MS, MENG,MSW etc )
Required
Indicate the groups with which you identify OR represent. This list represents "hard-to-reach" or lesser-studied populations. PCORI respects your decision to omit an answer to this question.
Multiple Choice
• Racial and ethnicminority groups
• Low-income groups• Women• Older adults
(age 65 andolder)
• Residents of ruralareas
• Individuals withspecialhealthcareneeds, includingindividuals withdisabilities
• Individuals withmultiple chronicdiseases
• Individualswith rarediseases
• Individuals whosegenetic makeupaffects their
Optional
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 21
Which disease/condition area do you represent?
Multiple Choice
• Allergies/Immune Disorders
• Blood Disorders • Cancer • Cardiovascular Health • Dental Health • Dermatology • Digestive Disorders • Ear/Nose/Throat
Diseases • Eye Diseases • Genetic Disorders/Rare
Diseases • Infectious Diseases • Kidney Disease • Liver Diseases • Mental/Behavioral
Health • Muscular/Skeletal
Health • Nervous System
Disorders • Nutritional/Metabolic
Disorders
Required
Indicate the advisory panel(s) for which you are applying.
Multiple Choice
• Addressing Disparities
• Improving Healthcare Systems
• Assessment of Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment Options
• Patient Engagement
Required
Please rank your order of preference for the panels on which you would like to serve
Interface Answers to previous question
Required
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 22
Indicate the categories with which you identify. Select all that apply
Multiple Choice
• Patient/Consumer• Caregiver/Family Member of Patient• Patient/Caregiver
Advocate/AdvocacyOrganization
• Clinician (e.g., nurse, physician,or an organization thatrepresents clinicians)
• Hospital/Health System (e.g.,federally qualified health center[FQHC], rural health clinic, or anorganization that representshospitals/health systems)
• Purchaser (e.g., employer or anorganization that representspurchaser)
• Payer (e.g., health insurer, Medicaid,or an organization that representspayers)
• Industry (e.g., device orpharmaceutical manufacturer, oran organization that representsindustry)
Required
Indicate the categories of "Caregiver" with which you identify. Select all that apply.
Multiple Choice
• Spouse of Patient• Parent of Patient• Child of Patient• Other (please specify)
Optional
Indicate the categories of "Clinician" with which you identify. Select all that apply.
Multiple Choice
• Primary Care Physician• Specialty Physician• Nurse• Nurse Practitioner• Physician Assistant• Mental Health
Professional• Physical Rehabilitation Specialist• Organization Representing Clinicians• Other (please specify)
Optional
Indicate the categories of "Hospital/Health System" with which you identify. Select all that apply.
Multiple Choice
• Public Hospital• Private Hospital• Public Health System• Private Health System• Community Health
Center/FQHC/FQHC look-alike
Optional
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 23
• Other Safety-Net Clinic • Urgent Care • Retail Health Center • Organization Representing
Hospitals/Health Systems • Other (please specify)
Indicate the categories of "Purchaser" with which you identify. Select all that apply.
Multiple Choice
• Large Employer (50 employees or more)
• Small Employer (fewer than 50 employees)
• Regional, State, or Local Business Coalition
• National Business Coalition
• Other (please specify)
Optional
Indicate the categories of "Payer" with which you identify. Select all that apply.
Multiple Choice
• Private Health Insurer • Public Health Insurer • Organization Representing
Payers • Other (please specify)
Optional
Indicate the categories of "Industry" with which you identify. Select all that apply.
Multiple Choice
• Devices • Diagnostics • Durable Medical
Equipment • Health Services Consulting • Pharmaceutical • Organization Representing
Industry • Other (please specify)
Optional
Indicate the categories of "Health Research" with which you identify. Select all that apply.
Multiple Choice
• Academic Research • Research in Government
Setting • Private Research
Institution • Research in Other Setting • Organization Representing
Researchers • Other (please specify)
Optional
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 24
Indicate the categories of "Policy Maker" with which you identify. Select all that apply.
Multiple Choice
• US Congress (member orstaff)
• State Legislature• State Legislative Staff• State Executive Agency• Local Government• Organization Representing
Policy Makers• Other (please specify)
Optional
Indicate the categories of "Training Institution" with which you identify. Select all that apply.
Multiple Choice
• Academic Medical Center• Nursing School• Other Health Profession
Institution• Residency Program• Organization Representing
Training• Other (please specify)
Optional
Indicate the community that you would primarily represent on the advisory panel(s) for which you are applying.
Multiple Choice
• Patient/Consumer• Caregiver/Family Member
of Patient• Patient/Caregiver
Advocacy Organization• Researcher• Clinician• Hospital/Health System• Purchaser• Payer• Industry• Policy Maker• Training Institution
Required
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 25
Indicate the community that you would primarily represent on the Advisory Panel on Clinical Trials.
Multiple Choice
• Patient• Caregiver/Family Member• Patient/Caregiver
Advocacy Organization• Clinical Trialist• Epidemiologist• Biostatistician• Medical Informaticist• Expert in Ethical
Dimensions of ClinicalTrials
• Practicing/ResearchClinician
• Expert in Scientific andHealth Services Research
• Expert in Health ServicesDelivery
• Expert in IntegrativeHealth and PrimaryPrevention Strategies
• Medical TechnologyExpert (pharmaceutical,device, etc.)
Required if “Clinical Trials”
was selected
Indicate the community that you would primarily represent on the Advisory Panel on Rare Disease.
Multiple Choice
• Rare-Disease Patient• Caregiver/Family Member
of Rare-Disease Patient• Rare-Disease
Patient/CaregiverAdvocacy Organization
• Practicing/ResearchClinician
• Expert in Scientific andHealth Services Research
• Expert in Health ServicesDelivery
• Expert in Evidence-BasedMedicine
• Expert in IntegrativeHealth and PrimaryPrevention Strategies
• Insurers• Member of the Life
Sciences Industry• Representatives of
Employers• Policy Makers
Required if “Rare Disease” was selected
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 26
Have you been engaged in PCORI-funded research?
Multiple Choice • Yes • No
Required if applying to the Advisory Panel on Patient Engagement
Please describe your involvement. Text Box Required if answered “Yes” to previous question
Have you been involved in the development of patient-centered clinical trials?
Multiple Choice • Yes • No
Required if applying to the Advisory Panel on Patient Engagement
Please describe your involvement. Text Box Required if answered “Yes” to previous question
Have you been a participant in a clinical trial?
Multiple Choice • Yes • No
Required if applying to the Advisory Panel on Patient Engagement
Please describe your involvement. Text Box Required if answered “Yes” to previous question
Have you been involved in the development of processes or frameworks that involve multi-stakeholders in patient-centered research?
Multiple Choice • Yes • No
Required if applying to the Advisory Panel on Patient Engagement
Please describe your involvement. Text Box Required if answered “Yes” to previous question
Have you been involved in a data research network and data sharing/privacy policy development?
Multiple Choice • Yes • No
Required if applying to the Advisory Panel on Patient Engagement
Please describe your involvement. Text Box Required if answered “Yes” to previous question
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 27
Include professional societies, and other organizations relevant to PCORI's mission, as well as trade associations of which your employer is a member.
Text Box Optional
Have you previously been involved with PCORI? Select all that apply.
Multiple Choice
• Joined PCORI email list• Visited PCORI's website• Participated in applicant
training• Watched PCORI webinar• Attended PCORI
sponsored event in-person• Attended an event where
PCORI was featured• Met with PCORI staff• Met with a
PCORIAmbassador
• Applied to be a reviewerof PCORI research fundingapplications
• Applied for PCORIresearch funding
• Received PCORIResearch Funding
• Served as a PCORIMerit Reviewer
• Participated in a PCORIAdvisory Panel
• Other (please specify)• None of the above
Required
If selected for an Advisory Panel, will you agree to abide by PCORI's Conflict of Interest Policy and to publicly disclose any potential conflicts?
Multiple Choice
• Yes• No
Required
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 28
Please download the PCORI Conflict of Interest form. Complete the form and rename the file with your full name. Then “Browse” and select the form. Then click “Upload” before you proceed with the remainder of this application form.
File Upload
Required if answered “Yes” to previous question
Personal Statement Please provide a personal statement (up to 500 words) that explains your interest in becoming a member of a PCORI Advisory Panel and your commitment to PCORI’s mission and goals. Please describe your experiences or accomplishments that motivated you to support PCORI’s work in this area, sharing why you want to be involved with PCORI. You will only be able to submit one personal statement, even if you are applying for more than one panel.
Text Box or File Upload
Required
Please provide an additional statement (up to 100 words) explaining why you would like to be a part of the Advisory Panel(s) you are applying to and what you are looking forward to gain from the experience.*
Text Box Required
If selected to serve on one of PCORI’s Advisory Panels, would you be able to attend a one- to two-day meeting during the week of May 25, 2015?
Multiple Choice • Yes• No
Required
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 29
With panelists' permission, PCORI includes their bios on our website to highlight the diversity of expertise our panelists offer and how this experience is relevant to each panel’s scope of work. If you are selected, do you permit PCORI to post this to our website?
Multiple Choice
• Yes• No
Required
Please include a bio here. Each bio should be 100 to 150 words long and written in the third person. Please touch on the experiences or accomplishments that motivated you to support PCORI’s work in this area, sharing why you want to be involved with PCORI. To use as reference, here is a link to PCORI's Board of Governors webpage, which includes a bio for each member.
Text Box Required
Please provide any of the following supportive documents: resume/curriculum vitae/list of relevant experience. You can upload up to 3 documents.
File Upload Optional
Please tell us anything else that would help PCORI consider your qualifications as a potential member of an Advisory Panel.
Text Box Optional
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 30
Appendix C: Characteristics of Applicant Pool
The pool of candidates in this cycle of selection included 770 individuals. However, since applicants had the option to apply to multiple advisory panels, some applications were reviewed more than once, adding up to a total of 1,434 application reviews.
Applicant Pool by Panel
Advisory Panel Number of Applicants
Assessment of Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment Options
322
Improving Healthcare Systems 330 Addressing Disparities 247
Patient Engagement 288
Communication and Dissemination Research
135
Rare Disease 112
Applicant Pool Demographics
*Census regions and divisions of the United States made available by the US Census Bureau,US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 31
Appendix D: Diversity of PCORI’s Advisory Panels All Advisory Panels Combined
Advisory Panel Application, Review, and Selection Process Report 2015 32