Practical guidance for engaging patients in health research, treatment guidelines and regulatory processes: results of an expert group meeting organized by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO)
de Wit, M.; Cooper, Cyrus; Tugwell, P.et al.
2019 • In Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 31 (7), p. 905-915
Practical guidance for engaging patients in health research, treatment guidelines and regulatory processes- results of an expert group meeting organized by the WHO and the ESCEO.pdf
Tugwell, P.; Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
Bere, N.; Public Engagement Department, European Medicines Agency, 30 Churchill Place, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5EU, United Kingdom
Kirwan, J.; Emeritus Professor of Rheumatic Diseases, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
Conaghan, P. G.; Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom, NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds, United Kingdom
Roberts, C.; International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement, Hamilton House, 4 Mabledon Place, Bloomsbury, London, WC1H 9BB, United Kingdom
Aujoulat, I.; Université Catholique de Louvain, Institute of Health & Society, Brussels, Belgium
Al-Daghri, N.; Chair for Biomarkers of Chronic Diseases, Biochemistry Department, College of Science, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Araujo de Carvalho, I.; Department of Ageing and Life Course, World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, Geneva 27, 1211, Switzerland
Barker, M.; MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, United Kingdom
Brandi, M. L.; Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy, Fondazione F.I.R.M.O., Florence, Italy
Bruyère, Olivier ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences de la santé publique > Santé publique, Epidémiologie et Economie de la santé
Halbout, P.; International Osteoporosis Foundation, 9 Rue Juste-Olivier, Nyon, 1260, Switzerland
Hiligsmann, M.; Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands
Jiwa, F.; Osteoporosis Canada, Toronto, ON, Canada
Kanis, J. A.; Mary McKillop Health Institute, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia, Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, United Kingdom
Laslop, A.; Scientific Office, Federal Office for Safety in Health Care, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, Vienna, Austria
Lawrence, W.; MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, United Kingdom, NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, United Kingdom
Pinto, D.; Department of Physical Therapy, College of Health Sciences, Marquette University, Milwaukee, United States, Center for Healthcare Studies, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States
Prieto Yerro, C.; Spanish Agency for Drugs and Medical Devices, Calle Campezo 1, Building 8, Madrid, 28022, Spain
Rabenda, V.; Department of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, CHU Sart Tilman B23, Liège, 4000, Belgium
Scholte-Voshaar, M.; Department of Psychology, Health and Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands
Vlaskovska, M.; Medical Faculty, Department of Pharmacology, Medical University Sofia, 2, Zdrave Str, Sofia, 1431, Bulgaria
Reginster, Jean-Yves ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences de la santé publique > Santé publique, Epidémiologie et Economie de la santé
Practical guidance for engaging patients in health research, treatment guidelines and regulatory processes: results of an expert group meeting organized by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO)
WHO (2015) World report on ageing and health. http://www.who.int/ageing/events/world-report-2015-launch/en/. Accessed 24 Jan 2018
Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C et al (2014) Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect 17:637–650. 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x
Haywood K, Brett J, Salek S et al (2015) Patient and public engagement in health-related quality of life and patient-reported outcomes research: what is important and why should we care? Findings from the first isoqol patient engagement symposium. Qual Life Res 24:1069–1076. 10.1007/s11136-014-0796-3
Coulter A (2012) Patient engagement–what works? J Ambul Care Manage 35:80–89. 10.1097/JAC.0b013e318249e0fd
Coulter A, Entwistle VA, Eccles A et al (2015) Personalised care planning for adults with chronic or long-term health conditions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:523. 10.1002/14651858.cd010523.pub2
Vahdat S, Hamzehgardeshi L, Hessam S et al (2014) Patient involvement in health care decision making: a review. Iran Red Crescent Med J 16:e12454. 10.5812/ircmj.12454
Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I et al (2014) Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet 383:101–104. 10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62329-6
Minogue V, Cooke M, Donskoy A-L et al (2018) Patient and public involvement in reducing health and care research waste. Res Involv Engagem 4:5. 10.1186/s40900-018-0087-1
Pittens CACM, Elberse JE, Visse M et al (2014) Research agendas involving patients: factors that facilitate or impede translation of patients’ perspectives in programming and implementation. Sci Public Policy 41:809–820. 10.1093/scipol/scu010
de Wit M, Kirwan JR, Tugwell P et al (2017) Successful stepwise development of patient research partnership: 14 years’ experience of actions and consequences in outcome measures in rheumatology (omeract). Patient 10:141–152. 10.1007/s40271-016-0198-4
Pushparajah D, Geissler J, Westergaard N (2015) Eupati: collaborating between patients, academia and industry to champion the informed patient in medicines research and development. J Med Dev Sci 1:74–80. 10.18063/JMDS.2015.01.011
Rashid A, Thomas V, Shaw T et al (2017) Patient and public involvement in the development of healthcare guidance: an overview of current methods and future challenges. Patient 10:277–282. 10.1007/s40271-016-0206-8
Montori VMDPJ, Straus S, Haynes B et al (2008) Decision making and the patient. In: Guyatt GRD, Meade MO, Cook DJ (eds) Users’ guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice, 2nd edn. Mcgraw-Hill Education, Columbus
INVOLVE (2018) The lead for advancement of public involvement in health and care research across nihr and beyond. www.invo.org.uk/about-involve. Accessed 24 Jan 2018
Selva A, Sanabria AJ, Pequeno S et al (2017) Incorporating patients’ views in guideline development: a systematic review of guidance documents. J Clin Epidemiol 88:102–112. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.018
Diaz Del Campo P, Gracia J, Blasco JA et al (2011) A strategy for patient involvement in clinical practice guidelines: methodological approaches. BMJ Qual Saf 20:779–784. 10.1136/bmjqs.2010.049031
Lanza ML, Ericsson A (2000) Consumer contributions in developing clinical practice guidelines. J Nurs Care Qual 14:33–40
Abma TA, Nierse CJ, Widdershoven GA (2009) Patients as partners in responsive research: methodological notions for collaborations in mixed research teams. Qual Health Res 19:401–415. 10.1177/1049732309331869
PatientPartner (2011) Patient involvement in clinical research. A guide for patient organisations and patient representatives. https://www.geneticalliance.org.uk/media/1602/patientspartnerforpatientorgs.pdf. Accessed 24 Jan 2018
Bravo P, Edwards A, Barr PJ et al (2015) Conceptualising patient empowerment: a mixed methods study. BMC Health Serv Res 15:252. 10.1186/s12913-015-0907-z
Barr PJ, Scholl I, Bravo P et al (2015) Assessment of patient empowerment: a systematic review of measures. PLoS ONE 10:e0126553. 10.1371/journal.pone.0126553
Arvidsson S, Bergman S, Arvidsson B et al (2012) Psychometric properties of the swedish rheumatic disease empowerment scale, swe-res-23. Musculoskeletal Care 10:101–109. 10.1002/msc.1005
EPF (2016) European patients forum: patient empowerment campaign http://www.eu-patient.eu/campaign/patientsprescribe. Accessed 24 Jan 2018
Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D et al (2011) Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ispor good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health 14:403–413. 10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013
Postmus D, Mavris M, Hillege HL et al (2016) Incorporating patient preferences into drug development and regulatory decision making: results from a quantitative pilot study with cancer patients, carers, and regulators. Clin Pharmacol Ther 99:548–554. 10.1002/cpt.332
Postmus D, Richard S, Bere N et al (2017) Individual trade-offs between possible benefits and risks of cancer treatments: results from a stated preference study with patients with multiple myeloma. Oncologist 22:1–8. 10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0257
Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S et al (2014) Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 32:883–902. 10.1007/s40273-014-0170-x
Pinto D, Danilovich MK, Hansen P et al (2017) Qualitative development of a discrete choice experiment for physical activity interventions to improve knee osteoarthritis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 98:1210–1216. 10.1016/j.apmr.2016.11.024
Cheung KL, Wijnen BF, Hollin IL et al (2016) Using best-worst scaling to investigate preferences in health care. Pharmacoeconomics 34:1195–1209. 10.1007/s40273-016-0429-5
Marsh K, Caro JJ, Hamed A et al (2017) Amplifying each patient’s voice: a systematic review of multi-criteria decision analyses involving patients. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 15:155–162. 10.1007/s40258-016-0299-1
Hiligsmann M, Dellaert BG, Dirksen CD et al (2017) Patients’ preferences for anti-osteoporosis drug treatment: a cross-european discrete choice experiment. Rheumatology 56:1167–1176. 10.1093/rheumatology/kex071
Rothery C, Bojke L, Richardson G et al (2016) A discrete choice experiment to explore patients’ willingness to risk disease relapse from treatment withdrawal in psoriatic arthritis. Clin Rheumatol 35:2967–2974. 10.1007/s10067-016-3452-1
Basch E (2013) Toward patient-centered drug development in oncology. N Engl J Med 369:397–400. 10.1056/NEJMp1114649
FDA (2009) Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Clinical/medical 2009 http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm193282.pdf. Accessed 24 Jan 2018
EMA (2016) Appendix 2 to the guideline on the evaluation of anticancer medicinal products in man: the use of patient-reported outcome (pro) measures in oncology studies. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_gb/document_library/other/2016/04/wc500205159.pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2018
PROTECT (2018) The pharmacoepidemiological research on outcomes of therapeutics by a european consortium. http://www.imi-protect.eu/index.shtml. Accessed 24 Jan 2018
PREFER (2016) Patient preferences in benefit-risk assessments during the drug life cycle. www.imi-prefer.eu Accessed 24 Jan 2018
Coulter A, Collins A (2011) Making shared decision-making a reality: no decision about me, without me. The King’s Fund, London. https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/default/files/making-shared-decision-making-a-reality-paper-angela-coulter-alf-collins-july-2011_0.pdf. Accessed 24 Jan 2018
de Wit MP, Kvien TK, Gossec L (2015) Patient participation as an integral part of patient-reported outcomes development ensures the representation of the patient voice: a case study from the field of rheumatology. RMD Open 1:e000129. 10.1136/rmdopen-2015-000129
Cheung PP, de Wit M, Bingham CO 3rd et al (2014) Recommendations for the involvement of patient research partners (prp) in omeract working groups. A report from the omeract 2014 working group on prp. J Rheumatol 43:187–193. 10.3899/jrheum.141011
de Wit MP, Berlo SE, Aanerud GJ et al (2011) European league against rheumatism recommendations for the inclusion of patient representatives in scientific projects. Ann Rheum Dis 70:722–726. 10.1136/ard.2010.135129
Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H et al (2017) The comet handbook: version 1.0. Trials 18:280. 10.1186/s13063-017-1978-4
SONG (2018) The standardised outcomes in nephrology (song) initiative: an international initiative that aims to establish core outcomes in chronic kidney disease. http://songinitiative.org/ Accessed 24 Jan 2018
ICHOM (2018) International consortium for health outcomes measurement. www.ichom.org. Accessed 24 Jan 2018
Sheridan S, Schrandt S, Forsythe L et al (2017) The pcori engagement rubric: Promising practices for partnering in research. Ann Fam Med 15:165–170. 10.1370/afm.2042
Tillett W, Adebajo A, Brooke M et al (2014) Patient involvement in outcome measures for psoriatic arthritis. Curr Rheumatol Rep 16:418. 10.1007/s11926-014-0418-7
Orbai AM, de Wit M, Mease P et al (2017) International patient and physician consensus on a psoriatic arthritis core outcome set for clinical trials. Ann Rheum Dis 76:673–680. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210242
Gladman DD, Mease PJ, Strand V et al (2007) Consensus on a core set of domains for psoriatic arthritis. J Rheumatol 34:1167–1170
Tillett W, Eder L, Goel N et al (2015) Enhanced patient involvement and the need to revise the core set—report from the psoriatic arthritis working group at omeract 2014. J Rheumatol 42:2198–2203. 10.3899/jrheum.141156
EMA (2011) Outcome report on pilot phase for participation of patient representatives in scientific advisory group (sag) meetings. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_gb/document_library/report/2011/12/wc500119201.pdf. Accessed 24 Jan 2018
EMA (2017) Outcome report on pilot to involve patients in benefit/risk discussions at chmp meetings. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_gb/document_library/report/2017/05/wc500227335.pdf. Accessed 24 Jan 2018
EUPATI (2018) European patients’ academy on therapeutic innovation (eupati) https://www.eupati.eu/. Accessed 24 Jan 2018
Chakradhar S (2015) Insurance companies are slow to cover next-generation sequencing. Nat Med 21:204–205. 10.1038/nm0315-204
de Wit MC, Reginster J-Y (2019) Practical guidance for patient-centred health research. Lancet 393:1095–1096. 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30034-0
Hewlett S, Wit M, Richards P et al (2006) Patients and professionals as research partners: challenges, practicalities, and benefits. Arthritis Rheum 55:676–680. 10.1002/art.22091
Tunis SR, Maxwell LJ, Graham ID et al (2017) Engaging stakeholders and promoting uptake of omeract core outcome instrument sets. J Rheumatol 44:1551–1559. 10.3899/jrheum.161273
de Wit M, Beurskens A, Piskur B et al (2018) Preparing researchers for patient and public involvement in scientific research: development of a hands-on learning approach through action research. Health Expect 21:752–763. 10.1111/hex.12671
