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

Lidewij Eva Vat, Teresa Finlay, Tjerk Jan Schuitmaker-Warnaar, Nick Fahy, Paul Robinson, Mathieu Boudes, Ana Diaz, Elisa Ferrer, Virginie Hivert, Gabor Purman, Marie Laure Kürzinger, Robert A. Kroes, Claudia Hey, Jacqueline E.W. Broerse

Research output: Contribution to JournalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

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.

Original languageEnglish
JournalHealth Expectations
Early online date6 Sep 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

Fingerprint

Patient Participation
Research
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Publications
Literature
Biomedical Technology Assessment
Decision Making
Research Personnel
Clinical Trials

Bibliographical note

© 2019 The Authors Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Keywords

  • evaluation
  • framework
  • impact
  • literature review
  • medicines development
  • metrics
  • patient and public involvement
  • patient engagement
  • patient participation
  • research

Cite this

Vat, Lidewij Eva ; Finlay, Teresa ; Schuitmaker-Warnaar, Tjerk Jan ; Fahy, Nick ; Robinson, Paul ; Boudes, Mathieu ; Diaz, Ana ; Ferrer, Elisa ; Hivert, Virginie ; Purman, Gabor ; Kürzinger, Marie Laure ; Kroes, Robert A. ; Hey, Claudia ; Broerse, Jacqueline E.W. / Evaluating the "return on patient engagement initiatives" in medicines research and development : A literature review. In: Health Expectations. 2019.
@article{3bd9f815323141eb91982b7fd1055cb3,
title = "Evaluating the {"}return on patient engagement initiatives{"} in medicines research and development: A literature review",
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",
author = "Vat, {Lidewij Eva} and Teresa Finlay and Schuitmaker-Warnaar, {Tjerk Jan} and Nick Fahy and Paul Robinson and Mathieu Boudes and Ana Diaz and Elisa Ferrer and Virginie Hivert and Gabor Purman and K{\"u}rzinger, {Marie Laure} and Kroes, {Robert A.} and Claudia Hey and Broerse, {Jacqueline E.W.}",
note = "{\circledC} 2019 The Authors Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.",
year = "2019",
doi = "10.1111/hex.12951",
language = "English",
journal = "Health Expectations",
issn = "1369-6513",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

Evaluating the "return on patient engagement initiatives" in medicines research and development : A literature review. / Vat, Lidewij Eva; Finlay, Teresa; Schuitmaker-Warnaar, Tjerk Jan; Fahy, Nick; Robinson, Paul; Boudes, Mathieu; Diaz, Ana; Ferrer, Elisa; Hivert, Virginie; Purman, Gabor; Kürzinger, Marie Laure; Kroes, Robert A.; Hey, Claudia; Broerse, Jacqueline E.W.

In: Health Expectations, 2019.

Research output: Contribution to JournalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluating the "return on patient engagement initiatives" in medicines research and development

T2 - A literature review

AU - Vat, Lidewij Eva

AU - Finlay, Teresa

AU - Schuitmaker-Warnaar, Tjerk Jan

AU - Fahy, Nick

AU - Robinson, Paul

AU - Boudes, Mathieu

AU - Diaz, Ana

AU - Ferrer, Elisa

AU - Hivert, Virginie

AU - Purman, Gabor

AU - Kürzinger, Marie Laure

AU - Kroes, Robert A.

AU - Hey, Claudia

AU - Broerse, Jacqueline E.W.

N1 - © 2019 The Authors Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - evaluation

KW - framework

KW - impact

KW - literature review

KW - medicines development

KW - metrics

KW - patient and public involvement

KW - patient engagement

KW - patient participation

KW - research

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071882773&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85071882773&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/hex.12951

DO - 10.1111/hex.12951

M3 - Review article

JO - Health Expectations

JF - Health Expectations

SN - 1369-6513

ER -