Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33599067›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2021

Understanding multi-stakeholder needs, preferences and expectations to define effective practices and processes of patient engagement in medicine development: A mixed-methods study.

Stuart D Faulkner, Suzanne Sayuri Ii, Chi Pakarinen, Fabian Somers, Maria Jose Vicente Edo, Lucia Prieto Remon, Ana Diaz Ponce, Dianne Gove, Elisa Ferrer, Begonya Nafria and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Exploring the patient perspective in pulmonary hypertension.The European respiratory journal · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

15 authors.

Stuart D FaulknerRadcliffe Primary Care Building, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6345-5323
Suzanne Sayuri IiRadcliffe Primary Care Building, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5128-0300
Chi PakarinenThe Synergist, Brussels, Belgium.
Fabian SomersUCB, Brussels, Belgium.
Maria Jose Vicente EdoAragon Health Sciences Insitute, Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud (IACS), Zaragoza, Spain.
Lucia Prieto RemonAragon Health Sciences Insitute, Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud (IACS), Zaragoza, Spain.
Ana Diaz PonceAlzheimer Europe, Luxembourg.
Dianne GoveAlzheimer Europe, Luxembourg.
Elisa FerrerEURORDIS-Rare Diseases Europe, Paris, France.
Begonya NafriaPatient Engagement in Research, Institut de Recerca Sant Joan de Déu- Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Barcelona, Spain.
Neil BertelsenPatient & Citizen Involvement in HTA Group, HTAi.ORCID 0000-0003-3235-5810
Mathieu BoudesEuropean Patients' Forum (EPF), Etterbeek, Belgium.
Nicholas BrookeThe Synergist, Brussels, Belgium.
Alexandra MoutetUCB, Brussels, Belgium.
Nick FahyRadcliffe Primary Care Building, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4957-0189

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe holistic evolution of patient engagement in medicines development requires a more detailed understanding of the needs of all involved stakeholders, and one that better accounts for the specific needs of some potentially vulnerable patient populations and key stages in medicines development.

objectiveThe purpose of this convergent mixed-methods study was to better understand the needs of different stakeholders concerning patient engagement at three key stages in medicines development: research priority setting, clinical trial design and early dialogues with Health Technology Assessment bodies and regulators.

designThis study brought together findings from three sources: i) an online questionnaire, ii) face-to-face consultations with two potentially vulnerable patient populations, a workshop with Health Technology Assessment bodies, and iii) three-step modified Delphi methodology.

resultsOverall stakeholders still need additional varied support mechanisms to undertake, sustain or measure value of patient engagement. Health Technology Assessment bodies need better rationale for patient engagement in early dialogue and tools to support its implementation. Improved awareness and understanding of the need and value that involving patients, who are often considered as potentially vulnerable, can bring is needed, as is better accommodation of their specific needs. Similarly, weighted Delphi categories were as follows: aims and objectives, and sustainability. Several additional themes were common across the three key stages in medicines development.

conclusionThis broad-reaching study provides the blocks needed to build a framework for patient engagement in medicines development. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients were involved in review and interpretation of data.

Indexed as

MedicinePatient ParticipationHumansMotivationTechnology Assessment, Biomedicalexpectations patient engagementhealth technology assessment bodiesmedicines developmentpotentially vulnerable populationsstakeholder expectations patient engagement

Identifiers

PMID33599067
PMCPMC8077078

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.