ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2023
Patients as research partners in preference studies: learnings from IMI-PREFER.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the utility of a patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) end-of-trial event to re-engage with cell-based therapy participants.Regenerative medicine · 2025Trial
- The impact of a patient advisory board on a clinical comparative effectiveness trial: a comparison of patient and researcher perspectives.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2025Trial
- Designing a Patient Preference Study on Subcutaneous Medical Devices: Incorporating Health Authority Scientific Advice and Patient Perspectives.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2025Article
- Frameworks Used to Engage Postsecondary Students in Campus Mental Health Research: A Scoping Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Inclusion in neurological research: empowering people living with neurological diseases.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2025Review
- The HEALERS: a patient, community, and stakeholder advisory board focus group series to refine a novel virtual world-based cardiac rehabilitation intervention and clinical trial.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Patient and public involvement in the design of an international clinical trial: real world experience.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- EULAR recommendations for the involvement of patient research partners in rheumatology research: 2023 update.Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 2024Article
- Patient and public involvement in the development of the digital tool MyBoT to support communication between young people with a chronic condition and care providers.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- From Innovator Result-driven to Multi-actor Impact-oriented Public-Private Partnerships: Integrating the Patient Perspective.Handbook of experimental pharmacology · 2024Review
- Drug repurposing for rare: progress and opportunities for the rare disease community.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Advancing Subcutaneous Dosing Regimens for Biotherapeutics: Clinical Strategies for Expedited Market Access.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2024Review
- Patient Acceptability and Preferences for Solid Oral Dosage Form Drug Product Attributes: A Scoping Review.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is growing recognition of the importance of patient and public stakeholder involvement (PPI) in patient preference research. However, limited evidence exists regarding the impact, barriers and enablers of PPI in preference studies. The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)-PREFER project conducted a series of preference case studies which incorporated PPI.
objectiveTo describe: (1) how PPI was operationalized in the PREFER case studies, (2) the impact of PPI, and (3) factors that served to impede and facilitate PPI.
methodsWe reviewed the PREFER final study reports to determine how patient partners were involved. We conducted a thematic framework analysis to characterize the impact of PPI and then administered a questionnaire to the PREFER study leads to identify barriers and facilitators to effective PPI.
resultsEight PREFER case studies involved patients as research partners. Patient partners were involved in activities spanning all phases of the patient preference research process, including in study design, conduct and dissemination. However, the type and degree of patient partner involvement varied considerably. Positive impacts of PPI included improvements in the: (1) quality of the research and research process; (2) patient partner empowerment; (3) study transparency and dissemination of results; (4) research ethics, and (5) trust and respect between the research team and the patient community. Of the 13 barriers identified, the 3 most frequently reported were inadequate resources, insufficient time to fully involve patient partners, and uncertainty regarding how to operationalize the role of 'patient partner. Among the 12 facilitators identified, the two most frequently cited were (1) having a clearly stated purpose for involving patients as research partners; and (2) having multiple patient partners involved in the study.
conclusionPPI had many positive impacts on the PREFER studies. Preference study leads with prior PPI experience reported a greater number of positive impacts than those with no such experience. In light of the numerous barriers identified, multi-faceted implementation strategies should be considered to support adoption, integration and sustainment of PPI within preference research. Additional case studies of patient partner involvement in preference research are needed as well to inform best practices in this area.
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.