CASCADE: A Community-Engaged Action Model for Generating Rapid, Patient-Engaged Decisions in Clinical Research

Abstract Background Integrating patient and community input is essential to the relevance and impact of patient-focused research. However, specific techniques for generating patient and community-informed research decisions remain limited. Here, we describes a novel CASCADE method (Community-Engaged Approach for Scientific Collaborations and Decisions) that was developed and implemented to make actionable, patient-centered research decisions during a federally funded clinical trial. Methods The CASCADE approach includes 7 key pillars: (1) identifying a shared, specific, and actionable goal; (2) centering community input; (3) integrating both pre-registered statistical analyses and exploratory “quests”; (4) fixed-pace scheduling, supported by technology; (5) minimizing opportunities for cognitive biases typical to group decision making; (6) centering diversity experiences and perspectives, including those of individual patients; (7) making decisions that are community-relevant, rigorous, and feasible. Here, we implemented these pillars within a three-day CASCADE panel, attended by diverse members of a research project team that included community interest-holders. The goal of our panel was to identify ways to improve an algorithm for matching patients to specific types of telehealth programs within an active, federally funded clinical trial. Results The CASCADE panel was attended by 27 participants, including 5 community interest-holders. Data reviewed to generate hypotheses and make decisions included (1) pre-registered statistical analyses, (2) results of 12 “quests” that were launched during the panel to answer specific panelist questions via exploratory analyses or literature review, (3) qualitative and quantitative patient input, and (4) team member input, including by staff who represented the target patient population for the clinical trial. Panel procedures resulted in the generation of 18 initial and 12 final hypotheses, which were translated to 19 decisional changes. Conclusions The CASCADE approach was an effective procedure for rapidly, efficiently making patient-centered decisions during an ongoing, federally funded clinical trial. Opportunities for further development will include exploring best-practice structural procedures, enhancing greater opportunities for pre-panel input by community interest-holders, and determining how to best standardize CASCADE outputs. Trial registration: The CASCADE procedure was developed in the context of NCT05999448.