Landscape of Participant-Centric Initiatives for Medical Research in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan: Scoping Review

Enhancing evidence-informed policymaking in medicine and healthcare: stakeholder involvement in the Commons Project for rare diseases in Japan

BACKGROUND

Although stakeholder involvement in policymaking is attracting attention in the fields of medicine and healthcare, a practical methodology has not yet been established. Rare-disease policy, specifically research priority setting for the allocation of limited research resources, is an area where evidence generation through stakeholder involvement is expected to be effective. We generated evidence for rare-disease policymaking through stakeholder involvement and explored effective collaboration among stakeholders.

METHODS

We constructed a space called 'Evidence-generating Commons', where patients, family members, researchers, and former policymakers can share their knowledge and experiences and engage in continual deliberations on evidence generation. Ten rare diseases were consequently represented. In the 'Commons', 25 consecutive workshops were held predominantly online, from 2019 to 2021. These workshops focused on (1) clarification of difficulties faced by rare-disease patients, (2) development and selection of criteria for priority setting, and (3) priority setting through the application of the criteria. For the first step, an on-site workshop using sticky notes was held. The data were analysed based on KJ method. For the second and third steps, workshops on specific themes were held to build consensus. The workshop agendas and methods were modified based on participants' feedback.

RESULTS

The 'Commons' was established with 43 participants, resulting in positive effects such as capacity building, opportunities for interactions, mutual understanding, and empathy among the participants. The difficulties faced by patients with rare diseases were classified into 10 categories. Seven research topics were identified as priority issues to be addressed including 'impediments to daily life', 'financial burden', 'anxiety', and 'burden of hospital visits'. This was performed by synthesising the results of the application of the two criteria that were particularly important to strengthen future research on rare diseases. We also clarified high-priority research topics by using criteria valued more by patients and family members than by researchers and former policymakers, and criteria with specific perspectives.

CONCLUSION

We generated evidence for policymaking in the field of rare diseases. This study's insights into stakeholder involvement can enhance evidence-informed policymaking. We engaged in comprehensive discussions with policymakers regarding policy implementation and planned analysis of the participants' experiences in this project.

Patient involvement in priority-setting for medical research: A mini review of initiatives in the rare disease field

Patient involvement (PI) in determining medical research priorities is an important way to ensure that limited research funds are allocated to best serve patients. As a disease area for which research funds are limited, we see a particular utility for PI in priority-setting for medical research on rare diseases. In this review, we argue that PI initiatives are an important form of evidence for policymaking. We conducted a study to identify the extent to which PI initiatives are being conducted in the rare disease field, the features of such initiatives, the trends in the priorities elicited, and the extent to which translation into policy is reported in the academic literature. Here, we report the results of this exploratory review of the English-language literature gathered through online databases and search engines, with the aim of identifying journal articles published prior to December 2020, describing PI initiatives focused on determining priorities for medical research funding in the rare disease field. We identified seven recently-published articles and found that the majority made use of structured methodologies to ensure the robustness of the evidence produced, but found little reported practical implementation or concrete plans for implementation of the results of the initiatives. We conclude that priority-setting initiatives are meaningful mechanisms for involving patients in determining research directions. However, we highlight the importance of translation into policy as a necessary next step to fully utilize the results and move beyond well-intentioned exercises. Finally, we draw attention to the benefits of involving patients throughout this process.

Framework and Practical Guidance for the Ethical Use of Electronic Methods for Communication With Participants in Medical Research

Online communication with participants, including online recruitment, electronic informed consent, and data communication, is one of the fields to which information and communication technology (ICT) has been applied in medical research. Online communication provides various benefits, especially for genome research and rare disease research. However, ethical challenges that are derived from or exacerbated by online communication need to be addressed. Here, we present an overview of such ethical issues and provide practical guidance for the ethical implementation of ICT. We specify the ethical issues in the context of using online communication for medical research by an analysis based on the eight ethical principles for clinical research. Informed by this ethical context, we then develop a novel framework for the governance of medical research involving ICT, which consists of eight categories: five research processes (ie, design of research, recruitment, informed consent, data communication, and dissemination and return of results) and three overarching perspectives related to multiple processes of research (ie, access to research and online dialog, community involvement, and independent review). Finally, we present a practical guidance chart for researchers, patient partners, independent reviewers, and funding agencies. We believe that our study will contribute to the ethical implementation of online communication in medical research.