Table 2.

Application of the comparative framework in the current study

Domain	Process factor	Engagement with stakeholders	Research with participants
Communication	Interaction	Stakeholders collaborated with investigators to conceptualize and develop the study over several years	Cognitive interview and survey participants interacted with researchers only while completing the activity
	Information exchange	Stakeholders contributed their opinions to refine endpoints	Participants’ prioritization informed final endpoint selection
Ethical obligations	Ethical review	Endpoint rating and refinement was non-human subject	Interviews and survey were human subject
	Privacy	Stakeholders provided feedback that was not anonymous	Interviews were anonymized and survey data were anonymous
Data collection	Participant pool	Purposeful partnering with stakeholders who had experience and interest	Participation by individuals with whom the research team had no prior contact
	Activities	Endpoint rating, refinement, and stakeholder meetings	Cognitive interviews and state fair surveys
Data analysis	Level of inference	Stakeholders involved in engagement; non-generalizable	Surgical patients and caregivers in Maryland; somewhat generalizable
	Result interpretation	Based on stakeholder’s experiential understanding	Based on scientific literature and statistical analysis
Dissemination	Target audience	Patients, family members, and other involved stakeholders	Scientific community through presentations and publications
	Time lag	Stakeholders informed of all findings in “real time”	Scientific community informed of results 1–3 years later