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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Morel, Thomas, Schroeder, Karlin, Cleanthous, Sophie, Andrejack, John, Blavat, Geraldine, Brooks, William, Gosden, Lesley, Siu, Carroll, Ratcliffe, Natasha, Slagle, Ashley F.
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