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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Partnership Quality and Outcomes Within an Autism Community Collaborative.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the methodology of independent Community Advisory Boards in health products research and development: a mixed-methods cross-sectional survey study.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Embedding patient engagement in the R&D process of a life sciences company through co-creation with a patient expert R&D board: a case study.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Measuring the Impact of Patient Engagement in Health Research: An Exploratory Study Using Multiple Survey Tools.Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Patient involvement in research within the Gynecological Cancer InterGroup: A call to action for a systematic approach: Results from a survey.Health science reports · 2023Article
- Exploring the outcomes of research engagement using the observation method in an online setting.BMJ open · 2023Article
- A Fond Farewell.Journal of patient-centered research and reviews · 2022Article
- Public Perspectives on Multi-Cancer Early Detection: A Qualitative Study.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.