Cargando…
Patients as research partners in preference studies: learnings from IMI-PREFER
BACKGROUND: There is growing recognition of the importance of patient and public stakeholder involvement (PPI) in patient preference research. However, limited evidence exists regarding the impact, barriers and enablers of PPI in preference studies. The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)-PREFER p...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10080166/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37029449 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00430-9 |
_version_ | 1785020867914235904 |
---|---|
author | Smith, Meredith Y. Janssens, Rosanne Jimenez-Moreno, A. Cecilia Cleemput, Irina Muller, Mireille Oliveri, Serena Simons, Gwenda Strammiello, Valentina Huys, Isabelle Falahee, Marie |
author_facet | Smith, Meredith Y. Janssens, Rosanne Jimenez-Moreno, A. Cecilia Cleemput, Irina Muller, Mireille Oliveri, Serena Simons, Gwenda Strammiello, Valentina Huys, Isabelle Falahee, Marie |
author_sort | Smith, Meredith Y. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: There is growing recognition of the importance of patient and public stakeholder involvement (PPI) in patient preference research. However, limited evidence exists regarding the impact, barriers and enablers of PPI in preference studies. The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)-PREFER project conducted a series of preference case studies which incorporated PPI. OBJECTIVE: To describe: (1) how PPI was operationalized in the PREFER case studies, (2) the impact of PPI, and (3) factors that served to impede and facilitate PPI. METHODS: We reviewed the PREFER final study reports to determine how patient partners were involved. We conducted a thematic framework analysis to characterize the impact of PPI and then administered a questionnaire to the PREFER study leads to identify barriers and facilitators to effective PPI. RESULTS: Eight PREFER case studies involved patients as research partners. Patient partners were involved in activities spanning all phases of the patient preference research process, including in study design, conduct and dissemination. However, the type and degree of patient partner involvement varied considerably. Positive impacts of PPI included improvements in the: (1) quality of the research and research process; (2) patient partner empowerment; (3) study transparency and dissemination of results; (4) research ethics, and (5) trust and respect between the research team and the patient community. Of the 13 barriers identified, the 3 most frequently reported were inadequate resources, insufficient time to fully involve patient partners, and uncertainty regarding how to operationalize the role of ‘patient partner. Among the 12 facilitators identified, the two most frequently cited were (1) having a clearly stated purpose for involving patients as research partners; and (2) having multiple patient partners involved in the study. CONCLUSION: PPI had many positive impacts on the PREFER studies. Preference study leads with prior PPI experience reported a greater number of positive impacts than those with no such experience. In light of the numerous barriers identified, multi-faceted implementation strategies should be considered to support adoption, integration and sustainment of PPI within preference research. Additional case studies of patient partner involvement in preference research are needed as well to inform best practices in this area. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40900-023-00430-9. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10080166 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-100801662023-04-07 Patients as research partners in preference studies: learnings from IMI-PREFER Smith, Meredith Y. Janssens, Rosanne Jimenez-Moreno, A. Cecilia Cleemput, Irina Muller, Mireille Oliveri, Serena Simons, Gwenda Strammiello, Valentina Huys, Isabelle Falahee, Marie Res Involv Engagem Comment BACKGROUND: There is growing recognition of the importance of patient and public stakeholder involvement (PPI) in patient preference research. However, limited evidence exists regarding the impact, barriers and enablers of PPI in preference studies. The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)-PREFER project conducted a series of preference case studies which incorporated PPI. OBJECTIVE: To describe: (1) how PPI was operationalized in the PREFER case studies, (2) the impact of PPI, and (3) factors that served to impede and facilitate PPI. METHODS: We reviewed the PREFER final study reports to determine how patient partners were involved. We conducted a thematic framework analysis to characterize the impact of PPI and then administered a questionnaire to the PREFER study leads to identify barriers and facilitators to effective PPI. RESULTS: Eight PREFER case studies involved patients as research partners. Patient partners were involved in activities spanning all phases of the patient preference research process, including in study design, conduct and dissemination. However, the type and degree of patient partner involvement varied considerably. Positive impacts of PPI included improvements in the: (1) quality of the research and research process; (2) patient partner empowerment; (3) study transparency and dissemination of results; (4) research ethics, and (5) trust and respect between the research team and the patient community. Of the 13 barriers identified, the 3 most frequently reported were inadequate resources, insufficient time to fully involve patient partners, and uncertainty regarding how to operationalize the role of ‘patient partner. Among the 12 facilitators identified, the two most frequently cited were (1) having a clearly stated purpose for involving patients as research partners; and (2) having multiple patient partners involved in the study. CONCLUSION: PPI had many positive impacts on the PREFER studies. Preference study leads with prior PPI experience reported a greater number of positive impacts than those with no such experience. In light of the numerous barriers identified, multi-faceted implementation strategies should be considered to support adoption, integration and sustainment of PPI within preference research. Additional case studies of patient partner involvement in preference research are needed as well to inform best practices in this area. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40900-023-00430-9. BioMed Central 2023-04-07 /pmc/articles/PMC10080166/ /pubmed/37029449 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00430-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Comment Smith, Meredith Y. Janssens, Rosanne Jimenez-Moreno, A. Cecilia Cleemput, Irina Muller, Mireille Oliveri, Serena Simons, Gwenda Strammiello, Valentina Huys, Isabelle Falahee, Marie Patients as research partners in preference studies: learnings from IMI-PREFER |
title | Patients as research partners in preference studies: learnings from IMI-PREFER |
title_full | Patients as research partners in preference studies: learnings from IMI-PREFER |
title_fullStr | Patients as research partners in preference studies: learnings from IMI-PREFER |
title_full_unstemmed | Patients as research partners in preference studies: learnings from IMI-PREFER |
title_short | Patients as research partners in preference studies: learnings from IMI-PREFER |
title_sort | patients as research partners in preference studies: learnings from imi-prefer |
topic | Comment |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10080166/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37029449 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00430-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT smithmeredithy patientsasresearchpartnersinpreferencestudieslearningsfromimiprefer AT janssensrosanne patientsasresearchpartnersinpreferencestudieslearningsfromimiprefer AT jimenezmorenoacecilia patientsasresearchpartnersinpreferencestudieslearningsfromimiprefer AT cleemputirina patientsasresearchpartnersinpreferencestudieslearningsfromimiprefer AT mullermireille patientsasresearchpartnersinpreferencestudieslearningsfromimiprefer AT oliveriserena patientsasresearchpartnersinpreferencestudieslearningsfromimiprefer AT simonsgwenda patientsasresearchpartnersinpreferencestudieslearningsfromimiprefer AT strammiellovalentina patientsasresearchpartnersinpreferencestudieslearningsfromimiprefer AT huysisabelle patientsasresearchpartnersinpreferencestudieslearningsfromimiprefer AT falaheemarie patientsasresearchpartnersinpreferencestudieslearningsfromimiprefer |