Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32118020›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2020

Improving Patient Involvement in the Lifecycle of Medicines: Insights From the EUPATI BE Survey.

Lynda Grine, Rosanne Janssens, Eline van Overbeeke, Danielle Derijcke, Mitchell Silva, Belinda Delys, Isabelle Dusart, Veerle Aertsen, Magali Mertens de Wilmars, Joanna Robaczewska and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Lynda GrineDepartment of Head & Skin, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Rosanne JanssensEUPATI BE VZW, Brussels, Belgium.
Eline van OverbeekeEUPATI BE VZW, Brussels, Belgium.
Danielle DerijckeEUPATI BE VZW, Brussels, Belgium.
Mitchell SilvaEUPATI BE VZW, Brussels, Belgium.
Belinda DelysEUPATI BE VZW, Brussels, Belgium.
Isabelle DusartEUPATI BE VZW, Brussels, Belgium.
Veerle AertsenEUPATI BE VZW, Brussels, Belgium.
Magali Mertens de WilmarsEUPATI BE VZW, Brussels, Belgium.
Joanna RobaczewskaEUPATI BE VZW, Brussels, Belgium.
Hilde StevensEUPATI BE VZW, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

EUPATI Belgium (EUPATI.be) is an informal gathering of local partners who are interested in improving patient involvement in healthcare innovation and medicines research and development. EUPATI.be brings together various stakeholders from different areas related to healthcare including patients, academia and industry. In doing so, we create an innovative collaborative approach where actors from different backgrounds work toward improving patient involvement in medical research, and putting the patient at the center of the Belgian healthcare system. Previously, we performed in-depth interviews with a small group of stakeholders on patient involvement. Here, we elaborate on our previous findings by using a nation-wide survey to inquire into Belgian stakeholders' perception on patient involvement. To this end, an electronic survey was available in French, Dutch and English, and accessible for 11 months. Twelve questions were asked, including 11 multiple choice questions and 1 open question. The latter was thematically analyzed according to the framework method. A total of 117 responses were registered and descriptive statistics were performed. The majority of respondents could be categorized into patient, academia and industry, whereas policy makers, payers, and healthcare professionals were underrepresented. We identified several barriers that hamper patient involvement, which were sometimes more reported by specific stakeholder groups. Next, we found that various stakeholders still consider patient involvement as a passive role, i.e., medical subject in a clinical trial. Respondents also reported that the role of the various stakeholders needed more clarification; this was also confirmed by the level of trust amongst the various stakeholders. Existing and the wish for more collaboration with the various stakeholders was reported by almost all respondents. Based on this survey, we can define the potential of involving patients in the medical research and development in the Belgian landscape. Our results will help to understand and tackle the various barriers that currently hamper patient involvement, whilst highlighting the need for a collaborative landscape from the multi-stakeholder perspective.

Indexed as

medical innovationmulti-stakeholderpatient engagementpatient involvementsurvey

Identifiers

PMID32118020
PMCPMC7031274

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.