What do stakeholders expect from patient engagement: Are these expectations being met?

Addressing diagnostic gaps and priorities of the global rare diseases community: Recommendations from the IRDiRC diagnostics scientific committee

The International Rare Diseases Research Consortium (IRDiRC) Diagnostic Scientific Committee (DSC) is charged with discussion and contribution to progress on diagnostic aspects of the IRDiRC core mission. Specifically, IRDiRC goals include timely diagnosis, use of globally coordinated diagnostic pipelines, and assessing the impact of rare diseases on affected individuals. As part of this mission, the DSC endeavored to create a list of research priorities to achieve these goals. We present a discussion of those priorities along with aspects of current, global rare disease needs and opportunities that support our prioritization. In support of this discussion, we also provide clinical vignettes illustrating real-world examples of diagnostic challenges.

The power of language: how to bridge the gap between healthcare research and patients - a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The value of patient involvement to the design, conduct, and outcomes of healthcare research is increasingly being recognized. Patient involvement also provides greater patient accessibility and contribution to research. However, the use of inaccessible and technical language when communicating with patients is a barrier to effective patient involvement.

METHODS

We analyzed peer-reviewed and gray literature on how language is used in communication between healthcare researchers and patients. We used this analysis to generate a set of recommendations for healthcare researchers about using more inclusive and accessible language when involving patients in research. This scoping review adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.

RESULTS

Four major themes about the use of language were developed from the literature analysis and were used to develop the set of recommendations. These recommendations include guidance on using standardized terminology and plain language when involving patients in healthcare research. They also discuss the implementation of co-development practices, patient support initiatives, and researcher training, as well as ways to improve emotional awareness and the need for greater equality, diversity, and inclusion.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The use of inclusive, empathetic, and clear language can encourage patients to be involved in research and, once they are involved, make them feel like equal, empowered, and valued partners. Working toward developing processes and guidelines for the use of language that enables an equal partnership between researchers and patients is critical.

Patient engagement in clinical trial design for rare neuromuscular disorders: impact on the DELIVER and ACHIEVE clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Engaging individuals living with disease in drug development and regulatory processes leads to more thoughtful and sensitive trial designs, drives more informative and meaningful outcomes from clinical studies, and builds trust between the public, government, and industry stakeholders. This engagement is especially important in the case of rare diseases, where affected individuals and their families face many difficulties getting information, treatment, and support. Dyne Therapeutics is developing therapeutics for people with genetically-driven muscle diseases. During the development of potential treatments for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) and myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1), Dyne sought the opinions of individuals living with these diseases to inform its clinical trial design and to decrease the difficulties that participants and families might experience participating in them.

METHODS

Dyne engaged individuals and families living with DMD and DM1 as expert partners in its clinical development programs. Dyne convened panels of affected individuals and care partners/parents of individuals living with DMD (n = 8) or DM1 (n = 18). Workshops focused on how affected individuals and their families evaluate and select clinical trials for participation, the importance, quality, and burden associated with individual trial design elements, participation considerations such as site location and the study visit design, patient privacy, the suitability and scope of travel and participant support programs, and the accessibility of content in the informed consent (or assent) forms. Dyne also engaged the DMD Community Advisory Board (CAB) to collect feedback and advice on designing optimal and meaningful clinical trials and measuring relevant outcomes.

RESULTS

The issues most important to individuals living with DM1 and DMD regarding clinical trials were the ability to participate/access to the trial, perceptions of benefit and risk of trials and potential treatments, the flexibility of participation, clear communication from the sponsor, availability of information from trusted sources, and patient enrollment. In response to the patient advisory workshops and CAB feedback, Dyne refined clinical trial inclusion/exclusion criteria and clinic visit design, developed a travel service program to address the burden of clinical trial travel and enable long-distance and cross-border participation, planned for home visits when feasible, and allowed for adequate rest before clinic visit initiation and between assessments. Additionally, Dyne developed and implemented a transparent and consistent communications plan (including age-appropriate content) for trial participants and community members, and assessed and adjusted procedures to provide maximum participant comfort and lower anxiety, particularly with younger participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Ongoing communication with the Duchenne CAB and with DMD and DM1 patient advisory committee members allows Dyne to stay current with disease community perspectives and feedback on the needs and preferences of those affected and has provided valuable insights into the participant experience thereby helping Dyne initiate clinical trials that better meet the needs of affected individuals and their families.

Exploring patient and caregiver perceptions of the meaning of the patient partner role: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The re-conceptualization of patients' and caregivers' roles in research from study participants to co-researchers ("patient partners") has led to growing pains within and outside the research community, such as how to effectively engage patients in research and as part of interdisciplinary teams. To support the growth of more successful research partnerships by developing a shared understanding of how patient partners conceptualize and contribute to their role, this study aimed to explore patient partners' motivations for engagement and understanding of their role.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants (n = 13) of an online survey of activities and impacts of patient engagement in Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research projects. Eligibility criteria included being a patient partner that indicated interest in interview participation upon survey completion, the ability to read/write in English and provide informed consent. Data were analyzed thematically using an inductive, codebook thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Illuminating the lived/living patient and caregiver experience was central to how most patient partners conceptualized the role in terms of its definition, purpose, value, and responsibilities. Participants also identified four additional categories of motivations for becoming a patient partner and contributions that patient partners make to research that build upon and are in addition to sharing their lived/living experiences. Lastly, participants highlighted important connotations of the term patient partner, including temporal and context-specific considerations for the term "patient" and what "partner" may imply about the nature of the research relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

At the onset of partnership, academic researchers and patient partners must create the space necessary to discuss and understand each other's underlying motivations for partnering and their perspectives on the purpose, value, and responsibilities of the patient partner role. These early conversations should help unearth what research partners hope to get out of and feel that they are able to contribute to engaging, and in such contribute to the development of reciprocal relationships that work towards shared and valued goals. Trial registration Not applicable.

Stakeholders' expectations of precision medicine: A qualitative study to identify areas of (mis)alignment

Background and Aims

To sustainably address challenges in implementing precision medicine (PM), coordinated efforts of different stakeholders are required. Understanding their expectations represents a first key step toward aligning on future actions and strategies. Here, we aimed to explore the expectations of different stakeholders from themselves and each other regarding PM.

Methods

This collaborative qualitative study was initiated by the global multistakeholder consortium From Testing to Targeted Treatments (FT3). Structured interviews were conducted with participants from five stakeholder groups: patients/patient advocates, healthcare providers (HCPs), researchers, policymakers/regulators/payers and industry representatives. A broad reach across geography, roles, experiences, and disease areas was sought. Results were analyzed by grounded theory methodology.

Results

All stakeholders stated that optimal implementation of PM can only be achieved through collaboration; industry representatives were the biggest promoters of collaboration. Stakeholders agreed that PM should be implemented focusing on the patient's best interest; HCPs were seen as important gatekeepers for PM by interacting directly with patients, and policymakers/payers were perceived as the most important drivers of access to PM. Areas of misalignment included the role of industry in clinical trial design and in access to PM (perceived as important by patients, HCPs and policymakers but not by industry representatives), and the stakeholders responsible for elaborating guidelines on PM use (patients indicated policymakers, while researchers indicated themselves). Priorities for optimal PM implementation and suggested actions included the need for enhancing high-level policy focus, improving genomic literacy, optimizing the health technology assessment for PM, advocating for equitable access, promoting collaboration between industry and other stakeholder groups and development of reliable research standards.

Conclusion

Stakeholder expectations revealed in this study suggested that no stakeholder group can drive change on its own; a global, multistakeholder collaborative approach that brings together current programs and best practices to support universal access to PM is needed.

The immaturity of patient engagement in value-based healthcare-A systematic review

Introduction

In recent years, Value-Based Healthcare (VBHC) has been gaining traction, particularly in hospitals. A core VBHC element is patient value, i.e., what matters most to the patient and at what cost can this be delivered. This interpretation of value implies patient engagement in patient-doctor communication. Although patient engagement in direct care in the VBHC setting is well described, patient engagement at the organizational level of improving care has hardly been studied. This systematic review maps current knowledge regarding the intensity and impact of patient engagement in VBHC initiatives. We focus on the organizational level of a continuous patient engagement model.

Methods

We performed a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines using five electronic databases. The search strategy yielded 1,546 records, of which 21 studies were eligible for inclusion. Search terms were VBHC and patient engagement, or similar keywords, and we included only empirical studies in hospitals or transmural settings at the organizational level.

Results

We found that consultation, using either questionnaires or interviews by researchers, is the most common method to involve patients in VBHC. Higher levels of patient engagement, such as advisory roles, co-design, or collaborative teams are rare. We found no examples of the highest level of patient engagement such as patients co-leading care improvement committees.

Conclusion

This study included 21 articles, the majority of which were observational, resulting in a limited quality of evidence. Our review shows that patient engagement at the organizational level in VBHC initiatives still relies on low engagement tools such as questionnaires and interviews. Higher-level engagement tools such as advisory roles and collaborative teams are rarely used. Higher-level engagement offers opportunities to improve healthcare and care pathways through co-design with the people being served. We urge VBHC initiatives to embrace all levels of patient engagement to ensure that patient values find their way to the heart of these initiatives.

Family Engagement at the Systems Level: A Framework for Action

While family engagement at the individual level of health care, such as families partnering with providers in decision-making about health care for an individual child has been well studied, family engagement in systems-level activities (e.g., participation in advisory and other decision-making groups, or creation and revision of policies) that impact the health services families and children receive has not. This note from the field presents a framework that describes the information and supports that help families partner with professionals and contribute to systems-level activities. Without attention to these components of family engagement, family presence and participation may be only token. We engaged an expert Family/Professional Workgroup whose members represented key constituencies and diverse geography, race/ethnicity, and areas of expertise; conducted a review of peer-reviewed publications and grey literature; and conducted a series of key informant interviews to identify best practices for supporting meaningful family engagement at the systems level. Based on an analysis of the findings, the authors identified four action-oriented domains of family engagement and key criteria that support and strengthen meaningful family engagement in systems-level initiatives. Child- and family-serving serving organizations can use this Family Engagement in Systems framework to support meaningful family engagement in the design of policies, practices, services, supports, quality improvement projects, research, and other systems-level activities.

Adopting recommendations for implementing patient involvement in cancer research: a funder's approach

BACKGROUND

The role of patients in cancer research is undergoing a significant evolution as all stakeholders seek to enhance the level of direct patient involvement in the design and development of clinical trials. However, there are significant hurdles that patients, patient advocates, laboratory researchers, clinical investigators, and funding institutions must overcome to implement relevant patient involvement in all aspects of biomedical research. By using innovative grant funding models, philanthropic organizations can lead the field in overcoming these challenges. Rising Tide Foundation for Clinical Cancer Research (RTFCCR), a private philanthropy that funds academic research, has developed a novel approach for requiring and supporting partnerships among grantees and patients in designing and conducting research projects. This paper presents a reflective case study of efforts to advance the field of patient involvement in clinical research.

METHODS

The decision to focus on patient involvement stems from an expressed focus area established by the RTFCCR board of directors. In conducting this work, RTFCCR partnered with Patvocates, a patient advocacy and engagement network, to create a set of guiding documents and resources aimed at public and private health research funders within various national, international, and therapeutic settings. This effort included a landscape assessment, interviews with experts, and an iterative development process.

RESULTS

To date, RTFCCR has completed and disseminated three guiding documents, one for funders, one for grant applicants, and one for patient advocates. These resources have already generated three major ongoing initiatives at RTFCCR: (1) inclusion of these recommendations in the foundation's funding guidelines; patient input to prioritization of research focus areas; and in topic selection for calls for proposals; (2) direct involvement of patient experts in the grant review process; and (3) a commitment to support high impact clinical research projects in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Moreover, the foundation has launched a partnership with the International Cancer Research Partnership, the global alliance of cancer research organizations.

CONCLUSION

By using its grantmaking function and developing standardized approaches for implementation of patient involvement, RTFCCR is seeking to advance patient-centric cancer clinical research. This approach will continue to develop as it is implemented and shared with partners throughout the world.

Health technology assessment 2025 and beyond: lifecycle approaches to promote engagement and efficiency in health technology assessment

Lifecycle considerations have always been part of health technology assessment (HTA). However, the concept of taking a fuller, more holistic "lifecycle approach" is gaining interest in the HTA community. The 2022 HTAi Global Policy Forum (GPF) discussed how adopting a lifecycle approach could promote stakeholder engagement and robust evidence generation, and whether it could enhance information sharing and transparency across stakeholder groups. This article summarizes the discussions held at the 2022 HTAi GPF and subsequent HTAi Annual Meeting panel session that debated some of the key challenges and opportunities, with particular focus on the pre- and postmarket and disinvestment phase activities. Core themes and recommendations identified that collaboration and patient involvement are happening but still needs to be strengthened, and moving to disease-based approaches may help, although individual contexts still need to be considered. Appropriately developed and mandated core outcome sets may help with information sharing and efficiency in all lifecycle activities. Further, methods for the appropriate use of big data and digital data collection should be developed and driven by the HTA community. The value of lifecycle activities should be reviewed; in particular, scientific advice appears valuable, but the magnitude of effect is somewhat unknown due to the challenges around the confidential nature of these activities. Not all lifecycle activities can be conducted for every technology, and while there is a move away from disinvestment phase activities, more structured prioritization criteria are required. This article ends with suggested next steps to bring forward some of the priority recommendations.

Using Patient Perspectives to Inform Better Clinical Trial Design and Conduct: Current Trends and Future Directions

The approach to patient engagement (PE) in drug development has changed rapidly due to many factors, including the complexity of innovative drugs and the need to demonstrate outcomes of relevance to patients, the desire to show 'value add' of PE, and the pandemic-related changes to how clinical trials are run, e.g., decentralised studies. In parallel, there have been changes in technology-assisted ways of running clinical trials, capturing patient health outcomes and preferences, an increasing societal demand for diversity and inclusion, and efforts to improve clinical trial efficiency, transparency, and accountability. Organisations are beginning to monitor PE activities and outcomes more effectively to learn and inform future PE strategies. As a result, these factors are facilitating the incorporation of patients' lived experience, preferences and needs into the design and running of clinical trials more than ever before. In this paper, the authors reflect upon these last few years, the emerging trends and their drivers, and where we may expect PE in clinical research to progress in the near future.

Potential Barriers of Patient Involvement in Health Technology Assessment in Central and Eastern European Countries

Patients' perspectives are important to identify preferences, estimate values and appreciate unmet medical needs in the process of research and development and subsequent assessment of new health technologies. Patient and public involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) is essential in understanding and assessing wider implications of coverage and reimbursement decisions for patients, their relatives, caregivers, and the general population. There are two approaches to incorporating the patients' voice in HTA, preferably used in a mix. In the first one, patients, caregivers and/or their representatives directly participate at discussions in different stages of the HTA process, often at the same table with other stakeholders. Secondly, patient involvement activities can be supported by evidence on patient value and experience collected directly from patients, caregivers and/or their representatives often by patient groups Patient involvement practices, however, are limited in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries without clear methodology or regulatory mechanisms to guide patient involvement in the HTA process. This poses the question of transferability of practices used in other countries, and might call for the development of new CEE-specific guidelines and methods. In this study we aim to map potential barriers of patient involvement in HTA in countries of the CEE region.

NCI's publication affiliation conundrum: Reframing innovation to incentivize an equitable path for advocate representation

Advocacy engagement has been at the forefront of National Cancer Institute (NCI) efforts to advance scientific discoveries and transform medical interventions. Nonetheless, the journey for advocates has been uneven. Case in Point: NCI publication affiliation rules of engagement pose unique equity challenges while raising questions about structural representation in biomedical research. Abiding by the core rationale that publication affiliation should be tailored to employment status, the NCI has systematically denied research advocate volunteers the opportunity to specifically list NCI as an institutional affiliation on academic publications. Unpacking advocate NCI publication affiliation restrictions and its links with advocacy heritage preservation and convergent science goals poses unique diversity, equity, and inclusion challenges and opportunities. Improving the quality of structural representation in biomedical research requires new theories of action and flexible planning to advance, promote and build capacity for strategic advocacy inclusion and equity within publication affiliation initiatives. Here we highlight several opportunities for how leadership might formulate a radically different vision for NCI's approach. This perspective interrogates the best way forward for ensuring that biomedical employee and volunteer advocate workforce publication affiliation intersections are characterized by increased creativity and representation parity. Imbuing the scientist and clinical researcher archetype with social dimensions, we join NCI critical thinkers in urging employees, funded academics, and volunteer citizen scientists to collectively assume the role as paladins of science and integrity who view the triumphs of making a difference in science alongside the social responsibility of promoting transdisciplinary professionalism and the democratization of science.

FACILITATORS AND BARRIERS OF PATIENT INVOLVEMENT IN HOSPITAL SERVICES: INTEGRATIVE REVIEW

ABSTRACT Objective to identify the facilitating factors and barriers that influence patient involvement in hospital services. Method integrative review; search of articles published between January 2011 and December 2020, in the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, Cinahl, Lilacs and Scopus, using descriptors related to "patient involvement", Barriers, Facilitators, in English, Spanish and Portuguese. Data collection was performed from May to June 2021, identifying 32 publications that met the inclusion criteria. Results the analysis resulted in three categories of facilitating factors and barriers: communication, actors of involvement and organizational culture, allowing the elaboration of a theoretical model of patient involvement. This model shows that in the centrality of the process are the actors involved, that is, patients and professionals, inserted in an organizational context, being influenced by leadership, culture, environment, available resources and processes, where communication permeates as a basis for involvement. Conclusion the facilitating factors and barriers identified in this review, synthesized in a theoretical model, allow transcending theoretical knowledge for practice. The complexity to operationalize this model requires patients, professionals, health services and society join forces to make this theoretical proposition a practice incorporated by the services.

FACILITADORES E BARREIRAS DO ENVOLVIMENTO DO PACIENTE NOS SERVIÇOS HOSPITALARES: REVISÃO INTEGRATIVA

RESUMO Objetivo identificar os fatores facilitadores e as barreiras que influenciam no envolvimento do paciente nos serviços hospitalares. Método revisão integrativa; realizada busca de artigos publicados entre janeiro de 2011 e dezembro de 2020, nas bases eletrônicas PubMed, Web of Science, Cinahl, Lilacs e Scopus, utilizando descritores relacionados a “patient involvement”, Barriers, Facilitators, nos idiomas inglês, espanhol e português. Coleta de dados realizada de maio a junho de 2021, identificando-se 32 publicações que atenderam aos critérios de inclusão. Resultados a análise resultou em três categorias de fatores facilitadores e barreiras: comunicação, atores do envolvimento e cultura organizacional, permitindo a elaboração de um modelo teórico de envolvimento do paciente. Esse modelo mostra que na centralidade do processo estão os atores envolvidos, ou seja, pacientes e profissionais, inseridos em um contexto organizacional, sendo influenciados pela liderança, cultura, ambiente, recursos disponíveis e processos, onde a comunicação perpassa como base para o envolvimento. Conclusão os fatores facilitadores e as barreiras identificadas nesta revisão, sintetizados num modelo teórico, permitem transcender o conhecimento teórico para a prática. A complexidade para operacionalizar esse modelo requer que pacientes, profissionais, serviços de saúde e sociedade unam os esforços para tornar esta proposição teórica em uma prática incorporada pelos serviços.

Sustaining Meaningful Patient Engagement Across the Lifecycle of Medicines: A Roadmap for Action

BACKGROUND

There is increased recognition that incorporating patients' perspectives and insights into the medicines development process results in better health outcomes and benefits for all involved stakeholders. Despite the increased interest and the existence of frameworks and practical recommendations, patient engagement (PE) is not yet considered standard practice. The objective of this work was to provide a roadmap to support systematic change in all stakeholder organisations involved in medicines development across Europe, patients and patient organisations, medicines developers, academia, regulatory authorities, Health Technology Assessment bodies, payers, policy-makers and public research funders, to sustain PE practices.

METHODS

A mixed-methods approach was used by the EU-funded Innovative Medicines Initiative PARADIGM Consortium to co-develop the sustainability roadmap including background work to identify success factors and scenarios for sustainable PE. The roadmap development was based on the Theory of Change concept and populated with findings from (1) interviews with national/ and international institutions with the potential to increase PE uptake by other stakeholders; (2) multi-stakeholder workshops and webinars; and (3) consultations with specific stakeholder groups, Consortium members and a consultative body formed by international PE initiatives.

RESULTS

This roadmap sets strategic goals for the PE community to achieve meaningful and systematic PE through changes in the culture, processes and resources of stakeholder organisations. It brings in key PARADIGM outputs to work in a coordinated fashion with existing frameworks and mechanisms to achieve system-wide sustained PE.

CONCLUSIONS

The roadmap provides a framework for all stakeholders to take collective action within their organisations and across Europe to implement PE in a sustainable manner.

Co-creation of practical "how-to guides" for patient engagement in key phases of medicines development-from theory to implementation

BACKGROUND

The effective impact of patient engagement (PE) across the medicines development continuum is widely acknowledged across diverse health stakeholder groups, including health authorities; however, the practical applications of how to implement meaningful and consistent PE are not always addressed. Guidance for the practical implementation of PE requires granularity, and the need for such guidance has been identified as a priority. We describe the co-production and summarize the content of how-to guides that focus on PE in the early stages of medicines development.

METHODS

Multi-stakeholder working groups (WGs) were established by Patient Focused Medicines Development (PFMD) for how-to guide development. How-to guides were co-produced with patients for PE activities identified as priorities through public consultation and by WGs. Guides were developed by applying PE quality guidance and associated quality criteria in an iterative process. How-to guides underwent internal review and validation by experts (ie, those with relevant experience in the particular PE activity or focus area) in specific focus groups and external review and validation through appropriate events and public consultation.

RESULTS

Overall, 103 individual contributors from 38 organizations (representing eight stakeholder groups, including patients/patient organizations) and from 14 countries were organized into WGs and workstreams. Each WG comprised 15-30 contributors with PE experience relevant to the specific how-to guide. How-to guides were developed for PE in the early discovery and preclinical phases; PE in the development of a clinical outcomes assessment strategy; and PE in clinical trial protocol design. The how-to guides have a standardized format and structure to promote user familiarity. They provide detailed guidance and examples that are relevant to the individual PE activity and aim to facilitate the practical implementation of PE.

CONCLUSIONS

The how-to guides form a comprehensive series of actionable and stepwise resources that build from and integrate the PE quality criteria across the medicines continuum. They will be made freely available through PFMD's Patient Engagement Management Suite ( pemsuite.org ) and shared widely to a variety of audiences in different settings, ensuring access to diverse patient populations. Implementation of these guides should advance the field of PE in bringing new medicines to the market and ultimately will benefit patients. Medicines are developed to help patients improve their health and lives. Many organizations and individuals want to ensure that medicines are developed to meet real patient needs and to address what is most important to patients. Finding out what patients need and what patients want requires good patient engagement, but knowing how to do patient engagement is not always clear. This is because medicines development is complicated, and a lot of different steps, people, and organizations are involved. Patient Focused Medicines Development (PFMD) was established in 2015 to connect individuals and organizations that are committed to making medicines not just for patients but with patients. To do this, PFMD brought together patients and other groups of people with relevant experience and good ideas on how to achieve patient engagement in the real-world setting. Together, PFMD has developed "how-to guides" for patient engagement that cover the main activities along the medicines development process. The guides are free to use and provide practical advice and examples that anyone can use in their patient engagement activities. The how-to guides will also help patients to understand medicines development and how best they can participate in this process to address their needs.

Evaluating the Feasibility and Validity of a New Tool to Assess Organizational Preparedness and Capabilities to Support Patient Engagement in Drug Development

Interest in patient-centric initiatives to engage patients as partners in clinical research and inform drug development strategy, planning and execution has increased exponentially during the past decade. Adoption, use, organizational approach and infrastructure supporting patient-centric initiatives, however, varies widely from company to company. The Drug Information Association (DIA) in collaboration with the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (Tufts CSDD) at the Tufts University School of Medicine developed and validated an assessment tool that companies can use to evaluate their organization's patient engagement preparedness and capabilities within the context of industry-wide practices. This paper discusses the development of the tool, the assessment experience, and implications for further refinement of the assessment process. Specifically, the team conducted an extensive literature review, compiled and analyzed case studies and gathered input from a working group of 18 biopharmaceutical companies. To validate the assessment tool and demonstrate its feasibility, the DIA-CSDD Tufts team conducted a pilot implementation involving onsite and virtual in-depth interviews among 14 biopharmaceutical companies. A subsequent paper will report on the findings from the 14 companies assessed.

Understanding multi-stakeholder needs, preferences and expectations to define effective practices and processes of patient engagement in medicine development: A mixed-methods study

Background

The holistic evolution of patient engagement in medicines development requires a more detailed understanding of the needs of all involved stakeholders, and one that better accounts for the specific needs of some potentially vulnerable patient populations and key stages in medicines development.

Objective

The purpose of this convergent mixed‐methods study was to better understand the needs of different stakeholders concerning patient engagement at three key stages in medicines development: research priority setting, clinical trial design and early dialogues with Health Technology Assessment bodies and regulators.

Design

This study brought together findings from three sources: i) an online questionnaire, ii) face‐to‐face consultations with two potentially vulnerable patient populations, a workshop with Health Technology Assessment bodies, and iii) three‐step modified Delphi methodology.

Results

Overall stakeholders still need additional varied support mechanisms to undertake, sustain or measure value of patient engagement. Health Technology Assessment bodies need better rationale for patient engagement in early dialogue and tools to support its implementation. Improved awareness and understanding of the need and value that involving patients, who are often considered as potentially vulnerable, can bring is needed, as is better accommodation of their specific needs. Similarly, weighted Delphi categories were as follows: aims and objectives, and sustainability. Several additional themes were common across the three key stages in medicines development.

Conclusion

This broad‐reaching study provides the blocks needed to build a framework for patient engagement in medicines development.

Patient or Public Contribution

Patients were involved in review and interpretation of data.

Are We Making a Difference? A Qualitative Study of Patient Engagement at the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review: Perspectives of Patient Groups

OBJECTIVES

Despite wide support for patient involvement in health technology assessments (HTA), determining meaningful engagement is complex. This article explores experiences and perceptions among patient groups participating in the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH)'s pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) process.

METHODS

We created a qualitative interview study comprising 22 semi-structured telephone interviews with individuals representing 21 different patient groups registered with the pCODR process. The analysis used a qualitative descriptive approach employing techniques from grounded theory.

RESULTS

Patient groups view the ability to make submissions to the pCODR process as a meaningful activity closely aligned with organizational priorities. Concurrently, they face substantial resource challenges to prepare submissions, including high opportunity costs and difficulty accessing needed literature and finding relevant patients. Although patient groups felt that CADTH is committed to transparency, they expressed considerable uncertainty around the direct impact of their submissions and desired additional avenues for engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests a strong commitment by patient groups to participate in the pCODR process despite uncertainty about how their submissions are used to inform HTA recommendations. Identifying opportunities to provide both financial and nonfinancial resources to patient groups is crucial to encouraging and supporting their meaningful participation in HTA processes.

Engaging patients and stakeholders in preresearch: findings from the Pipeline to Proposal Awards Initiative

Aim: The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Pipeline to Proposal (P2P) Awards Initiative funded 177 awardees to engage patients and stakeholder partners in preresearch. Based on P2P, we described engagement strategies; outcomes; facilitators; and challenges to inform research funders and stakeholders participating in preresearch. Materials & methods: We used a qualitative approach based on content analysis of program data and interviews with P2P awardees and partners. Results: Awardees developed partnership infrastructure by recruiting patients and stakeholders, establishing clear roles, and providing training. Building trust was key to engaging patients and stakeholders in preresearch. Awardees reported partners were more likely to engage in PCOR in the future. Conclusion: P2P awardees increased capacity of patient and stakeholder partnerships to conduct PCOR.

Patient Preference Studies During Early Drug Development: Aligning Stakeholders to Ensure Development Plans Meet Patient Needs

Although patient preferences have been studied broadly for marketed products or around the time of submission to authorities and launch, patient preference studies have rarely been used during the early drug development phases. In this paper, we formulate three hypotheses supporting the use of patient preference studies in early product development: (1) integration of the patient perspective into the development process from phase 1 onwards will result in healthcare solutions with outcomes that best address patients' needs; (2) a structured process to build patient-based evidence involving partnerships between patients and other key stakeholders will improve alignment of development activities with the needs of patients; (3) quantitative patient preference research built on robust qualitative insights is necessary to strengthen development decisions in the interests of patients. To illustrate such a structured process, we describe qualitative insights research (social media analysis and online bulletin boards) and quantitative patient preference studies in dry eye disease and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis conducted during early product development by a pharmaceutical company to generate patient-based evidence. The outputs from such early patient preference studies are being used to inform patient reported outcome strategies, clinical development strategies, product design and delivery features, and form the basis for early dialog with regulators, health technology assessment (HTA) bodies and payers to ensure focus and alignment on patient-relevant endpoints. Furthermore, to discuss and theoretically substantiate our hypotheses, we review how different groups and organizations are working to embrace fully the patient perspective in product development and healthcare decision-making. The hypotheses are commensurate with the general trend toward patient-centered healthcare and the activities initiated by regulators, HTA agencies, and patient organizations. We advocate that all healthcare players should actively contribute to aligning on best practices concerning choice of methodologies and engage in multi-stakeholder dialog along the entire product development chain, to realize health technologies that best meet the needs of patients.

What do stakeholders expect from patient engagement: Are these expectations being met?

Background

Meaningful patient engagement (PE) in medicines development and during the life cycle of a product requires all stakeholders have a clear understanding of respective expectations.

Objective

A qualitative survey was undertaken to understand stakeholder expectations.

Design

The survey explored 4 themes from the perspective of each stakeholder group: meaning, views, expectations and priorities for PE. Participants were grouped into 7 categories: policymakers/regulators; health‐care professionals (HCPs); research funders; payers/purchasers/HTA; patients/patient representatives; pharmaceutical/life sciences industry; and academic researchers.

Results

Fifty‐nine interviews were conducted across a range of geographies, PE experience and job seniority/role. There was consensus across stakeholders on meaning of PE; importance of promoting PE to a higher level than currently; need for a more structured process and guidance. There was little consensus on stakeholder expectations and roles. Policymakers/regulators were expected by others to drive PE, create a framework and facilitate PE, provide guidelines of good practice and connect stakeholders, but this expectation was not shared by the policymakers/regulators group. HCPs were seen as the link between patients and other stakeholders, but HCPs did not necessarily share this view.

Discussion and conclusions

Despite broad stakeholder categories, clear themes emerged: there is no “leader”; no stakeholder has a clear view on how to meaningfully engage with patients; there are educational gaps; and a structure and guidance for PE is urgently required. Given the diversity of stakeholders, there needs to be multistakeholder collaborative leadership. Effective collaboration requires consensus on roles, responsibilities and expectations to synergize efforts to deliver meaningful PE in medicines life cycle.