Literature DB >> 29714550

Effective Partnering in Conducting Benefit-Risk Patient Preference Studies: Perspectives From a Patient Advocacy Organization, a Pharmaceutical Company, and Academic Stated-Preference Researchers.

Anne M Wolka1, Angelyn O Fairchild2, Shelby D Reed2, Greg Anglin3, F Reed Johnson2, Michael Siegel4, Rebecca Noel1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Formal incorporation of patients' perspectives is becoming increasingly important in medical product development and decision making. This article shares practical advice regarding how patient advocacy organizations, the pharmaceutical industry, and academic experts in stated-preference research can effectively partner on benefit-risk patient preference studies.
METHODS: The authors partnered on a benefit-risk patient preference study related to the treatment of psoriasis. The authors from Duke Clinical Research Institute also share their experiences in collaborating with numerous other organizations in conducting benefit-risk patient preference studies.
RESULTS: Upon initiation of the study partnership with appropriate experts, training is important to ensure all collaborators have a common understanding of the methodology, what objectives stated-preference methods can support, and expectations for the project. To the extent possible, partners should align on and document relevant clinical and logistical details prior to study implementation. During study implementation, partners should use good communication practices and document and maintain a record of any changes to the original plan. Presentation of the study results should be tailored to the particular audience, with the appropriate partner leading the presentation based on its format and audience.
CONCLUSION: Partners from patient advocacy organizations, the pharmaceutical industry, and academia can effectively collaborate on benefit-risk patient preference studies with sufficient planning and ongoing communication. This article is a call for action for other organizations to engage in sharing of experiences regarding effective partnering in quantifying patient preferences in medical product development.

Entities:  

Keywords:  academia; benefit-risk; industry; patient advocacy; stated preferences

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29714550     DOI: 10.1177/2168479017746404

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ther Innov Regul Sci        ISSN: 2168-4790            Impact factor:   1.778


  4 in total

1.  Factors and Situations Affecting the Value of Patient Preference Studies: Semi-Structured Interviews in Europe and the US.

Authors:  Chiara Whichello; Eline van Overbeeke; Rosanne Janssens; Karin Schölin Bywall; Selena Russo; Jorien Veldwijk; Irina Cleemput; Juhaeri Juhaeri; Bennett Levitan; Jürgen Kübler; Meredith Smith; Richard Hermann; Matthias Englbrecht; Axel J Hueber; Alina Comanescu; Sarah Harding; Steven Simoens; Isabelle Huys; Esther W de Bekker-Grob
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2019-09-18       Impact factor: 5.810

2.  Opportunities and challenges for the inclusion of patient preferences in the medical product life cycle: a systematic review.

Authors:  Rosanne Janssens; Isabelle Huys; Eline van Overbeeke; Chiara Whichello; Sarah Harding; Jürgen Kübler; Juhaeri Juhaeri; Antonio Ciaglia; Steven Simoens; Hilde Stevens; Meredith Smith; Bennett Levitan; Irina Cleemput; Esther de Bekker-Grob; Jorien Veldwijk
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2019-10-04       Impact factor: 2.796

3.  Patient Centricity in Patient Preference Studies: The Patient Perspective.

Authors:  Eline van Overbeeke; Inès Vanbinst; Aura Cecilia Jimenez-Moreno; Isabelle Huys
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2020-03-20

4.  Quantitative Benefit-Risk Assessment: State of the Practice Within Industry.

Authors:  Meredith Y Smith; Janine van Til; Rachael L DiSantostefano; A Brett Hauber; Kevin Marsh
Journal:  Ther Innov Regul Sci       Date:  2020-10-27       Impact factor: 1.778

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.