Cargando…
The value of co-creating a clinical outcome assessment strategy for clinical trial research: process and lessons learnt
BACKGROUND: In support of UCB pharmaceutical research programs, the aim of this research was to implement a novel process for patient involvement in a multidisciplinary research group to co-create a clinical outcome assessment strategy to accurately reflect the experience of people living with early...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10598985/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37876009 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00505-7 |
_version_ | 1785125677326925824 |
---|---|
author | Morel, Thomas Schroeder, Karlin Cleanthous, Sophie Andrejack, John Blavat, Geraldine Brooks, William Gosden, Lesley Siu, Carroll Ratcliffe, Natasha Slagle, Ashley F. |
author_facet | Morel, Thomas Schroeder, Karlin Cleanthous, Sophie Andrejack, John Blavat, Geraldine Brooks, William Gosden, Lesley Siu, Carroll Ratcliffe, Natasha Slagle, Ashley F. |
author_sort | Morel, Thomas |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: In support of UCB pharmaceutical research programs, the aim of this research was to implement a novel process for patient involvement in a multidisciplinary research group to co-create a clinical outcome assessment strategy to accurately reflect the experience of people living with early-stage Parkinson’s. Patient experts were an integral part of the decision-making process for patient-reported outcome (PRO) research and instrument development. METHODS: In partnership with two patient organizations (Parkinson’s UK and the Parkinson’s Foundation), 6 patient experts were recruited into a multidisciplinary research group alongside clinical, patient engagement and involvement, regulatory science, and outcome measurement experts. The group was involved across two phases of research; the first phase identified what symptoms are cardinal to the experience of living with early-stage Parkinson’s and the second phase involved the development of PRO instruments to better assess the symptoms that are important to people living with early-stage Parkinson’s. Patient experts were important in performing a variety of roles, in particular, qualitative study protocol design, conceptual model development, and subsequent co-creation of two PRO instruments. RESULTS: Involving people with Parkinson’s in PRO research ensured that the expertise of these representatives from the Parkinson’s community shaped and drove the research; as such, PRO instruments were being developed with the patient at the forefront. Working with patient experts required considerable resource and time allocation for planning, communication, document development, and organizing meetings; however, their input enriched the development of PRO instruments and was vital in developing PRO instruments that are more meaningful for people with Parkinson’s and clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Conducting PRO research, in the context of clinical development involving pharmaceutical companies, requires balancing regulatory and scientific rigor with tight time constraints. Incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective, which included patient experts as joint investigators, had a strong positive impact on our research, despite the logistical complexities of their involvement. Due to the input of patient experts, the innovative clinical outcome assessment strategy and the co-created novel PRO instruments were more relevant and holistic to the patient experience of early-stage Parkinson’s. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Image: see text] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40900-023-00505-7. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10598985 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-105989852023-10-26 The value of co-creating a clinical outcome assessment strategy for clinical trial research: process and lessons learnt Morel, Thomas Schroeder, Karlin Cleanthous, Sophie Andrejack, John Blavat, Geraldine Brooks, William Gosden, Lesley Siu, Carroll Ratcliffe, Natasha Slagle, Ashley F. Res Involv Engagem Research BACKGROUND: In support of UCB pharmaceutical research programs, the aim of this research was to implement a novel process for patient involvement in a multidisciplinary research group to co-create a clinical outcome assessment strategy to accurately reflect the experience of people living with early-stage Parkinson’s. Patient experts were an integral part of the decision-making process for patient-reported outcome (PRO) research and instrument development. METHODS: In partnership with two patient organizations (Parkinson’s UK and the Parkinson’s Foundation), 6 patient experts were recruited into a multidisciplinary research group alongside clinical, patient engagement and involvement, regulatory science, and outcome measurement experts. The group was involved across two phases of research; the first phase identified what symptoms are cardinal to the experience of living with early-stage Parkinson’s and the second phase involved the development of PRO instruments to better assess the symptoms that are important to people living with early-stage Parkinson’s. Patient experts were important in performing a variety of roles, in particular, qualitative study protocol design, conceptual model development, and subsequent co-creation of two PRO instruments. RESULTS: Involving people with Parkinson’s in PRO research ensured that the expertise of these representatives from the Parkinson’s community shaped and drove the research; as such, PRO instruments were being developed with the patient at the forefront. Working with patient experts required considerable resource and time allocation for planning, communication, document development, and organizing meetings; however, their input enriched the development of PRO instruments and was vital in developing PRO instruments that are more meaningful for people with Parkinson’s and clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Conducting PRO research, in the context of clinical development involving pharmaceutical companies, requires balancing regulatory and scientific rigor with tight time constraints. Incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective, which included patient experts as joint investigators, had a strong positive impact on our research, despite the logistical complexities of their involvement. Due to the input of patient experts, the innovative clinical outcome assessment strategy and the co-created novel PRO instruments were more relevant and holistic to the patient experience of early-stage Parkinson’s. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Image: see text] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40900-023-00505-7. BioMed Central 2023-10-24 /pmc/articles/PMC10598985/ /pubmed/37876009 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00505-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This 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 | Research Morel, Thomas Schroeder, Karlin Cleanthous, Sophie Andrejack, John Blavat, Geraldine Brooks, William Gosden, Lesley Siu, Carroll Ratcliffe, Natasha Slagle, Ashley F. The value of co-creating a clinical outcome assessment strategy for clinical trial research: process and lessons learnt |
title | The value of co-creating a clinical outcome assessment strategy for clinical trial research: process and lessons learnt |
title_full | The value of co-creating a clinical outcome assessment strategy for clinical trial research: process and lessons learnt |
title_fullStr | The value of co-creating a clinical outcome assessment strategy for clinical trial research: process and lessons learnt |
title_full_unstemmed | The value of co-creating a clinical outcome assessment strategy for clinical trial research: process and lessons learnt |
title_short | The value of co-creating a clinical outcome assessment strategy for clinical trial research: process and lessons learnt |
title_sort | value of co-creating a clinical outcome assessment strategy for clinical trial research: process and lessons learnt |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10598985/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37876009 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00505-7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT morelthomas thevalueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT schroederkarlin thevalueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT cleanthoussophie thevalueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT andrejackjohn thevalueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT blavatgeraldine thevalueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT brookswilliam thevalueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT gosdenlesley thevalueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT siucarroll thevalueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT ratcliffenatasha thevalueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT slagleashleyf thevalueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT morelthomas valueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT schroederkarlin valueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT cleanthoussophie valueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT andrejackjohn valueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT blavatgeraldine valueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT brookswilliam valueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT gosdenlesley valueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT siucarroll valueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT ratcliffenatasha valueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT slagleashleyf valueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt |