Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35111882›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-centered research and reviews2022

Monitoring and Evaluation of Patient Engagement in Health Product Research and Development: Co-Creating a Framework for Community Advisory Boards.

Sevgi E Fruytier, Lidewij Eva Vat, Rob Camp, François Houÿez, Hilde De Keyser, Denise Dunne, Davide Marchi, Laura McKeaveney, Richard H Pitt, Carina A C M Pittens and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-centered research and reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. A Fond Farewell.Journal of patient-centered research and reviews · 2022
    Article
  8. Public Perspectives on Multi-Cancer Early Detection: A Qualitative Study.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
    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

13 authors.

Sevgi E FruytierAthena Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Lidewij Eva VatAthena Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Rob CampEuropean Organisation for Rare Diseases (EURORDIS), Barcelona, Spain.
François HouÿezEuropean Organisation for Rare Diseases (EURORDIS), Barcelona, Spain.
Hilde De KeyserCF Europe, Brussels, Belgium.
Denise DunneCystinosis Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.
Davide MarchiVertex Pharmaceuticals (Europe) Limited, London, United Kingdom.
Laura McKeaveneyNovartis AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Richard H PittBoehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Ingelheim, Germany.
Carina A C M PittensAthena Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Meagan F VaughnTranslate Bio, Inc., Lexington, MA, USA.
Elena ZhuravlevaRoche pRED (Pharma Research and Early Development), F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland.
Tjerk Jan Schuitmaker-WarnaarAthena Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWhile patient engagement is becoming more customary in developing health products, its monitoring and evaluation to understand processes and enhance impact are challenging. This article describes a patient engagement monitoring and evaluation (PEME) framework, co-created and tailored to the context of community advisory boards (CABs) for rare diseases in Europe. It can be used to stimulate learning and evaluate impacts of engagement activities.

methodsA participatory approach was used in which data collection and analysis were iterative. The process was based on the principles of interactive learning and action and guided by the PEME framework. Data were collected via document analysis, reflection sessions, a questionnaire, and a workshop.

resultsThe tailored framework consists of a theory of change model with metrics explaining how CABs can reach their objectives. Of 61 identified metrics, 17 metrics for monitoring the patient engagement process and short-term outcomes were selected, and a "menu" for evaluating long-term impacts was created. Example metrics include "Industry representatives' understanding of patients' unmet needs;" "Feeling of trust between stakeholders;" and "Feeling of preparedness." "Alignment of research programs with patients' needs" was the highest-ranked metric for long-term impact.

conclusionsFindings suggest that process and short-term outcome metrics could be standardized across CABs, whereas long-term impact metrics may need to be tailored to the collaboration from a proposed menu. Accordingly, we recommend that others adapt and refine the PEME framework as appropriate. The next steps include implementing and testing the evaluation framework to stimulate learning and share impacts.

Indexed as

drug developmentpatient engagementpatient participationprogram evaluationrare diseases

Identifiers

PMID35111882
PMCPMC8772604

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.