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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Smith, Meredith Y., Janssens, Rosanne, Jimenez-Moreno, A. Cecilia, Cleemput, Irina, Muller, Mireille, Oliveri, Serena, Simons, Gwenda, Strammiello, Valentina, Huys, Isabelle, Falahee, Marie
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