Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37415771›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in medicine2023

Integrating qualitative interviews in drug development and the use of qualitative evidence in product labelling and health technology assessments: a review.

Anne-Sophie Michel, Paul Kamudoni, Alexia Marrel, Rocco Adiutori, Céline Desvignes-Gleizes, Sally Lanar, Peter Schache, Erica Spies, Josephine Park

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Anne-Sophie MichelICON Plc, Patient Centered Outcomes, Lyon, France.
Paul KamudoniMerck KgaA, Clinical Measurement Sciences, Global Research and Development, Healthcare, Darmstadt, Germany.
Alexia MarrelICON Plc, Patient Centered Outcomes, Lyon, France.
Rocco AdiutoriMapi Research Trust, Lyon, France.
Céline Desvignes-GleizesMapi Research Trust, Lyon, France.
Sally LanarICON Plc, Patient Centered Outcomes, Lyon, France.
Peter SchacheLAIFE Reply, Frankfurt, Germany.
Erica SpiesEMD Serono Research and Development Institute Inc., A Business of Merck KGaA, Patient Centered Outcomes Research, Global Research and Development Healthcare, Darmstadt, Germany.
Josephine ParkEMD Serono Research and Development Institute Inc., A Business of Merck KGaA, Patient Centered Outcomes Research, Global Research and Development Healthcare, Darmstadt, Germany.
Merck (Germany) · DEPatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute · USMapi Research Trust · FRPeace Research Institute Frankfurt · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Including qualitative research in clinical trial design is an innovative approach to understanding patients' perspective and incorporate the patient's voice in all stages of drug development and evaluation. This review aims to explore current practices, lessons learned from the literature, as well as how qualitative interviews are considered by health authorities for marketing authorization and reimbursement. Methods: A targeted literature review of Medline and Embase databases was conducted in February 2022 to identify publications on qualitative methods embedded in clinical trial of pharmaceutical products. An additional search of guidelines and labeling claims of approved products regarding qualitative research was performed in various sources of grey literature. Results: From the 24 publications and nine documents reviewed, we identified the research questions addressed with qualitative methods during clinical trials (e.g., change in quality of life, symptoms assessment, treatment benefit), preferred data collection methods (e.g., interviews), and data collection points (e.g., baseline and exit interviews). Moreover, the data from labels and HTAs demonstrate that qualitative data can play an important role in approval processes. Conclusion: The use of in-trial interviews is still emerging and is not yet common practice. Although the industry, scientific community, regulatory agencies and HTAs are showing an increasing interest in the use of evidence generated via in-trial interviews, guidance from regulators and HTAs would be helpful. Developing new methods and technologies to address the common challenges for such interviews is key to progress.

Indexed as

chronic diseaseclinical trialinterviewmixed-method approachespatient-focused drug developmentqualitative research and analysis

Identifiers

PMID37415771
PMCPMC10322192
OpenAlexW4381433501

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.