Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34181236›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2021

Optimising Multi-stakeholder Practices in Patient Engagement: A Gap Analysis to Enable Focused Evolution of Patient Engagement in the Development and Lifecycle Management of Medicines.

S D Faulkner, C A C M Pittens, N S Goedhart, E H Davies, E Manning, A Diaz-Ponce, Maria Jose Vicente Edo, L Prieto-Remón, L Husain, K Huberman and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. 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

12 authors.

S D FaulknerRadcliffe Primary Care Building, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Rd, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK. stuart.faulkner@phc.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-6345-5323
C A C M PittensAthena Institute for Health and Life Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
N S GoedhartAthena Institute for Health and Life Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
E H DaviesRadcliffe Primary Care Building, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Rd, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
E ManningUCB Pharma, 8010 Arco Corporate Drive, Raleigh, NC, 27617, USA.
A Diaz-PonceAlzheimer Europe, 14 Rue Dicks, 1417, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
Maria Jose Vicente EdoAragon Health Sciences Institute, Instituto Aragones de Ciencias de La Salud (IACS), Zaragoza, Spain.
L Prieto-RemónAragon Health Sciences Institute, Instituto Aragones de Ciencias de La Salud (IACS), Zaragoza, Spain.
L HusainRadcliffe Primary Care Building, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Rd, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
K HubermanEuropean AIDS Treatment Group, Av des Arts 56-4c, 1000, Brussels, Belgium.
M BoudesEuropean Patients' Forum, Chaussée d'Etterbeek 180, Brussels, Belgium.
M SubramaniamBayer AG. Medical Affairs & Pharmacovigilance, Mullerstrasse 178, 13353, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe PARADIGM consortium aimed to make patient engagement in the development and lifecycle management of medicines easier and more effective for all, with the development of new tools that fulfil robustly defined gaps where engagement is suboptimal.

aimsTo generate an inventory of gaps in patient engagement practices and process from existing global examples.

methodsA large set of criteria for effective patient engagement previously defined via a multi-stakeholder Delphi method, were mapped under fourteen overarching themes. A gap analysis was then performed by twenty-seven reviewers against the resulting forty-six mapped criteria, on a sample of seventy initiatives from global databases.

resultsAn inventory of gaps was identified including contextual information as to why the gaps exist. Our work identified general patterns where patient engagement was suboptimal-defined as; fragmented reporting and dissemination of patient engagement activities, and the fundamental principles defined in frameworks or guidance being poorly adhered to in actual practice. Specific gaps were identified for sixteen criteria. Additionally, it was also common to observe primary aspects of a process were addressed for a given criteria (i.e. training for roles and responsibilities) but a secondary context element was lacking (i.e. making training material accessible/understandable/meaningful to all participants).

conclusionThe results show that the evolution towards meaningful and systematic patient engagement is occurring, yet more importantly they provide clear directional insights to help enhance collaborative practices and co-design solutions. This targeted impact to catalyse a needs-oriented health system that integrates patient engagement at its core is essential.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationHumansGap analysisMedicine research and developmentMedicines lifecyclePatient engagementPracticesProcesses

Identifiers

PMID34181236
PMCPMC8492561

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.