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
. 2023 Apr 7;9(1):21.
doi: 10.1186/s40900-023-00430-9.

Patients as research partners in preference studies: learnings from IMI-PREFER

Meredith Y Smith  1   2 , Rosanne Janssens  3 , A Cecilia Jimenez-Moreno  4   5 , Irina Cleemput  6 , Mireille Muller  7 , Serena Oliveri  8 , Gwenda Simons  9 , Valentina Strammiello  10 , Isabelle Huys #  3 , Marie Falahee #  9
Affiliations

Patients as research partners in preference studies: learnings from IMI-PREFER

Meredith Y Smith et al. Res Involv Engagem. .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Medical product decision-making; Patient and public involvement/engagement (PPI); Patient impact; Patient involvement; Patient preference study; Patient preferences; Patient research partners.

Plain language summary

Research about patients’ preferences for medicinal products and treatments is growing. Such research could be improved if patients were involved as ‘research partners,’ that is, as active members of the study team itself. To date, however, little is known about the actual experience of involving patients as partners in such research. This paper presents learnings from involving patients as partners in 8 case studies conducted as part of IMI-PREFER, a big, European-based project which aimed to develop recommendations about how to conduct preference research. Involving patients as partners led to improvements in the: (1) quality of the research and research process; (2) recruitment of participants; (3) content and design of patient-facing informational materials; and, (4) how and what study results were shared with patient communities. Our findings showed that it is important to plan for patient partners’ involvement early on in the design of the preference study so as to ensure that they are fully integrated into the research team and their opportunity to contribute to all stages of the research is optimized. Such planning should address how patient partners will be paid, what their role responsibilities will include, how and when they will be trained and educated, and how they will be supported throughout the course of the study. Having a clearly stated purpose for involving patients as research partners, selecting patient partners who have had prior research experience and relationships with the researchers, and having multiple patient partners on the study team are all also helpful in supporting successful patient involvement. We need more people to share their experiences with involving patient partners in preference research so that we can continue to improve how this is done.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

MYS was a fulltime employee of AstraZeneca plc and a shareholder in the company at the time that this study was conducted. MYS is currently a fulltime employee of Evidera, Inc., PPD, a part of Thermo Fisher Scientific. MM is a fulltime employee of Novartis and a shareholder in the company. All other co-authors (IC, MF, IH, RJ, SO, GS, and VS) have no conflicts of interest to report. This article and its contents reflect the authors’ personal views and not the view of PREFER, IMI, the European Union or EFPIA, or any organization with which any of the authors are affiliated.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. European Medicines Agency (EMA). Regulatory science to 2025 strategy. 2020. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/regulatory-procedural-guideline/e....
    1. European Commission (EC). Pharmaceutical strategy for Europe 2020. 2020. https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-02/pharma-strategy_report_....
    1. US Food and Drug Administration Guidance to Industry. Patient preference information – voluntary submission, review in premarket approval applications, humanitarian device exemption applications, and de novo requests, and inclusion in decision summaries and device labeling: guidance for industry, Food and Drug Administration staff, and other stakeholders. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research 2016. https://www.fda.gov/media/92593/download.
    1. International Council on Harmonisation (ICH) of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. ICH harmonised guideline. Revision of M4E guideline on enhancing the format and structure of benefit-risk information in ICH Efficacy-M4E(R2). https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/M4E_R2__Guideline.pdf.
    1. Hiligsmann M, Bourse SPG, Boonen A. A review of patient preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment. Curr Rheum Rep. 2015;17:61. doi: 10.1007/s11926-015-0533-0. - DOI - PMC - PubMed