ArticleDrug safety2025
Using Mixed Methods to Evaluate Risk Minimisation Programs in Europe and the USA: An Innovative Blueprint.
Article in Drug safety, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Implementation Science for Effective Risk Management of Medicines: A Call for Global Action.Drug safety · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSignificant methodological shortcomings have been documented to date in risk minimisation program evaluations for medicinal products, including overreliance on survey methods alone. Recently updated guidances from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) recommend the use of frameworks and mixed methods designs to improve the rigor of these assessments.
objectiveThe purpose of this paper was to exemplify how a mixed methods approach, guided by an implementation science framework, can be used to design the evaluation of a risk minimisation program.
methodsWe selected the Practical, Robust, Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) as the implementation science framework to guide our mixed methods approach. PRISM provides a comprehensive and systematic approach to measuring the key domains relevant to the implementation and outcomes of a risk minimisation program. We mapped the PRISM domains to the evaluation dimensions described in the EMA and FDA guidances. We then specified a mixed methods evaluation design and data collection methods using a fictitious risk minimisation program as a case study for illustrative purposes.
resultsOn the basis of our case study, we developed quantitative and qualitative measures, including specific items for surveys and interviews, for both formative and summative evaluations. For both the formative and summative evaluations, measures focussed on assessing (1) contextual factors that could affect program implementation and impact and (2) outcomes including implementability and acceptability as well as degree of program reach, adoption, implementation, effectiveness and maintenance.
conclusionsMixed methods, guided by a well-established implementation science framework, can be applied to ensure comprehensive formative and summative evaluations that provide fit-for-purpose information that may inform regulatory decision-making.
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.