Volume 52 | Number 2 | April 2017

Abstract List

Susan Dorr Goold M.D., M.H.S.A., M.A., C. Daniel Myers Ph.D., Lisa Szymecko Ph.D., J.D., Carla Cunningham Collins B.A., B.S.W., Sal Martinez B.S., Charo Ledón, Terrance R. Campbell M.A. Ed., M.S.I.S.M., Marion Danis M.D., Stephanie Solomon Cargill Ph.D., Hyungjin Myra Kim Sc.D., Zachary Rowe B.A.


To learn how minority and underserved communities would set priorities for patient‐centered outcomes research ().

Data Sources

Sixteen groups ( = 183) from minority and underserved communities in two states deliberated about priorities using the simulation exercise oosing ll ogether (). Most participants were minority, one‐third reported income <$10,000, and one‐fourth reported fair/poor health.


Academic–community partnerships adapted for priority setting using existing research agendas and interviews with community leaders, clinicians, and key informants.

Data Collection

Tablet‐based collected demographic information, individual priorities before and after group deliberation, and groups' priorities.

Principal Findings

Individuals and groups prioritized research on Quality of Life, Patient‐Doctor, Access, Special Needs, and (by total resources spent) Compare Approaches. Those with less than a high school education were less likely to prioritize New Approaches, Patient‐Doctor, Quality of Life, and Families/Caregivers. Blacks were less likely to prioritize research on Causes of Disease, New Approaches, and Compare Approaches than whites. Compare Approaches, Special Needs, Access, and Families/Caregivers were significantly more likely to be selected by individuals after compared to before deliberation.


Members of underserved communities, in informed deliberations, prioritized research on Quality of Life, Patient‐Doctor, Special Needs, Access, and Compare Approaches.