Evaluation of patient engagement in medicine development: A multi-stakeholder framework with metrics

被引:21
作者
Vat, Lidewij Eva [1 ]
Finlay, Teresa [2 ]
Robinson, Paul [3 ]
Barbareschi, Giorgio [4 ]
Boudes, Mathieu [5 ]
Diaz Ponce, Ana Maria [6 ]
Dinboeck, Michaela [7 ]
Eichmann, Lukas [8 ]
Ferrer, Elisa [9 ]
Fruytier, Sevgi E. [1 ]
Hey, Claudia [10 ]
Broerse, Jacqueline E. W. [1 ]
Schuitmaker-Warnaar, Tjerk Jan [1 ]
机构
[1] Vrije Univ Amsterdam, Athena Inst, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[2] Univ Oxford, Nuffield Dept Primary Care Hlth Sci, Oxford, England
[3] Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd, Hoddesdon, Herts, England
[4] European AIDS Treatment Grp EATG, Dusseldorf, Germany
[5] European Patients Forum EPF, Brussels, Belgium
[6] Alzheimer Europe, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
[7] Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland
[8] Novo Nordisk AS, Bagsvaerd, Denmark
[9] EURORDIS Rare Dis Europe, Paris, France
[10] Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany
基金
欧盟地平线“2020”;
关键词
impact; metrics; monitoring and evaluation; patient engagement; patient participation; quality indicators;
D O I
10.1111/hex.13191
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background Patient engagement is becoming more customary in medicine development. However, embedding it in organizational decision-making remains challenging, partly due to lack of agreement on its value and the means to evaluate it. The objective of this project was to develop a monitoring and evaluation framework, with metrics, to demonstrate impact and enhance learning. Methods A consortium of five patient groups, 15 biopharmaceutical companies and two academic groups iteratively created a framework in a multi-phase participatory process, including analysis of its application in 24 cases. Results The framework includes six components, with 87 metrics and 15 context factors distributed among (sub)components: (a) Input: expectations, preparations, resources, representativeness of stakeholders; (b) Activities/process: structure, management, interactions, satisfaction; (c) Learnings and changes; (d) Impacts: research relevance, study ethics and inclusiveness, study quality and efficiency, quality of evidence and uptake of products, empowerment, reputation and trust, embedding of patient engagement; (e) Context: policy, institutional, community, decision-making contextual factors. Case study findings show a wide variation in use of metrics. There is no 'one size fits all' set of metrics appropriate for every initiative or organization. Presented sample sets of metrics can be tailored to individual situations. Conclusion Introducing change into any process is best done when the value of that change is clear. This framework allows participants to select what metrics they value and assess to what extent patient engagement has contributed. Patient contribution Five patient groups were involved in all phases of the study (design, conduct, interpretation of data) and in writing the manuscript.
引用
收藏
页码:491 / 506
页数:16
相关论文
共 51 条
  • [1] On the path to a science of patient input
    Anderson, Margaret
    McCleary, K. Kimberly
    [J]. SCIENCE TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE, 2016, 8 (336)
  • [2] Can the impact of public involvement on research be evaluated? A mixed methods study
    Barber, Rosemary
    Boote, Jonathan D.
    Parry, Glenys D.
    Cooper, Cindy L.
    Yeeles, Philippa
    Cook, Sarah
    [J]. HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, 2012, 15 (03) : 229 - 241
  • [3] Blamey A., 2007, EVALUATION-US, V13, P439, DOI DOI 10.1177/1356389007082129
  • [4] Patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making: A systematic review of evaluation tools
    Boivin, Antoine
    L'Esperance, Audrey
    Gauvin, Francois-Pierre
    Dumez, Vincent
    Macaulay, Ann C.
    Lehoux, Pascale
    Abelson, Julia
    [J]. HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, 2018, 21 (06) : 1075 - 1084
  • [5] IMPROVING RECRUITMENT IN CLINICAL TRIALS: WHY ELIGIBLE PARTICIPANTS DECLINE
    Brintnall-Karabelas, Julie
    Sung, Susanna
    Cadman, Mary Ellen
    Squires, Carol
    Whorton, Katherine
    Pao, Maryland
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON HUMAN RESEARCH ETHICS, 2011, 6 (01) : 69 - 74
  • [6] Caron-Flinterman F., 2006, Sci Public Policy, V33, P291, DOI DOI 10.3152/147154306781778993
  • [7] Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence
    Chalmers, Iain
    Glasziou, Paul
    [J]. LANCET, 2009, 374 (9683) : 86 - 89
  • [8] Charlton J., 1998, Nothing About Us Without Us-Disability Oppression and Empowerment, P3, DOI DOI 10.1525/CALIFORNIA/9780520207950.001.0001
  • [9] Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis
    Crocker, Joanna C.
    Ricci-Cabello, Ignacio
    Parker, Adwoa
    Hirst, Jennifer A.
    Chant, Alan
    Petit-Zeman, Sophie
    Evans, David
    Rees, Sian
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2018, 363
  • [10] Patients’, clinicians’ and the research communities’ priorities for treatment research: There is an important mismatch
    Crowe S.
    Fenton M.
    Hall M.
    Cowan K.
    Chalmers I.
    [J]. Research Involvement and Engagement, 1 (1)