Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Feb;23(1):5-18.
doi: 10.1111/hex.12951. Epub 2019 Sep 6.

Evaluating the "return on patient engagement initiatives" in medicines research and development: A literature review

Affiliations
Review

Evaluating the "return on patient engagement initiatives" in medicines research and development: A literature review

Lidewij Eva Vat et al. Health Expect. 2020 Feb.

Abstract

Background: Showing how engagement adds value for all stakeholders can be an effective motivator for broader implementation of patient engagement. However, it is unclear what methods can best be used to evaluate patient engagement. This paper is focused on ways to evaluate patient engagement at three decision-making points in the medicines research and development process: research priority setting, clinical trial design and early dialogues with regulators and health technology assessment bodies.

Objective: Our aim was to review the literature on monitoring and evaluation of patient engagement, with a focus on indicators and methods.

Search strategy and inclusion criteria: We undertook a scoping literature review using a systematic search, including academic and grey literature with a focus on evaluation approaches or outcomes associated with patient engagement. No date limits were applied other than a cut-off of publications after July 2018.

Data extraction and synthesis: Data were extracted from 91 publications, coded and thematically analysed.

Main results: A total of 18 benefits and 5 costs of patient engagement were identified, mapped with 28 possible indicators for their evaluation. Several quantitative and qualitative methods were found for the evaluation of benefits and costs of patient engagement.

Discussion and conclusions: Currently available indicators and methods are of some use in measuring impact but are not sufficient to understand the pathway to impact, nor whether interaction between researchers and patients leads to change. We suggest that the impacts of patient engagement can best be determined not by applying single indicators, but a coherent set of measures.

Keywords: evaluation; framework; impact; literature review; medicines development; metrics; patient and public involvement; patient engagement; patient participation; research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Article selection PRISMA flow diagram

References

    1. PARADIGM . Patients active in research and dialogues for an improved generation of medicines. PARADIGM. https://imi-paradigm.eu/our-work/. Published 2018. Accessed October 6, 2019.
    1. Levitan B, Getz K, Eisenstein EL, et al. Assessing the financial value of patient engagement: a quantitative approach from CTTI’s patient groups and clinical trials project. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2018;52(2):220‐229. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Geissler J, Ryll B, di Priolo SL, Uhlenhopp M. Improving patient involvement in medicines research and development: a practical roadmap. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2017;51(5):612‐619. - PubMed
    1. Duffett L. Patient engagement: what partnering with patient in research is all about. Thromb Res. 2017;150:113‐120. - PubMed
    1. Barber R, Boote JD, Parry GD, Cooper CL, Yeeles P, Cook S. Can the impact of public involvement on research be evaluated? A mixed methods study. Health Expect. 2012;15(3):229‐241. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types