Capturing Real-World Rare Disease Patient Journeys: Are Current Methodologies Sufficient for Informed Healthcare Decisions?

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Kristen A. Cribbs, Lucas T. A. Blackmore, Asia R. Banks, Da Sol Kim, Betsy J. Lahue
{"title":"Capturing Real-World Rare Disease Patient Journeys: Are Current Methodologies Sufficient for Informed Healthcare Decisions?","authors":"Kristen A. Cribbs,&nbsp;Lucas T. A. Blackmore,&nbsp;Asia R. Banks,&nbsp;Da Sol Kim,&nbsp;Betsy J. Lahue","doi":"10.1111/jep.70010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Rationale</h3>\n \n <p>Despite growing emphasis among healthcare decision-makers on patient perspectives and real-world outcomes to inform care and access decisions, understanding of patient journey experiences in rare diseases remains limited due to data collection and evaluation challenges.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aims and Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>This systematic literature review (SLR) assessed study designs, methodologies, and outcomes reported in real-world investigations of rare disease patient journeys.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Searches in PubMed and Google Scholar targeted English-language publications and congress proceedings from 1 January 2014, to 30 April 2024, including rare disease patients, caregivers, or healthcare providers. Keywords included ‘Journey’, ‘Path’, or ‘Odyssey’. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and abstracted data. Descriptive analyses and quality assessments were conducted.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Thirty-one studies met inclusion criteria, with 296,548 participants spanning over 600 rare diseases. Most studies used prospective observational (61%) and cross-sectional (26%) designs and were conducted in Europe (45%). Interviews (39%) and surveys (29%) were common methodologies. Patients (87%) were the primary research focus, compared to caregivers (32%) or providers (10%). The most studied journey stages were ‘Pre-diagnosis/Screening’ (97%) and ‘Diagnosis’ (84%), while ‘Disease Awareness’ (16%) and ‘Treatment Adherence’ (6%) were less common. Across 164 outcomes reported, frequent outcomes included ‘Healthcare Resource Utilization’ (94%), ‘Symptoms’ (74%), and ‘Time-to-Diagnosis’ (71%). Fewer studies reported ‘Costs’ (19%), ‘Caregiver/Family Burden’ (16%), and ‘Productivity’ (13%). Time-to-diagnosis averaged 11.8 years and a median of 6.1 years. All but one study (97%) was rated low or very low quality due to observational designs.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Most rare disease patient journey evidence focuses on ‘Pre-diagnosis/Screening’ and ‘Diagnosis’ stages using qualitative methods and surveys. While symptoms, time-to-diagnosis, and resource utilization were commonly reported, evidence gaps included treatment adherence, caregiver burden and productivity. Longitudinal assessments to collect real-world care and treatment burden outcomes, including caregiver perspectives, can enhance both clinician and policy decision-making for individuals living with rare diseases.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jep.70010","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70010","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale

Despite growing emphasis among healthcare decision-makers on patient perspectives and real-world outcomes to inform care and access decisions, understanding of patient journey experiences in rare diseases remains limited due to data collection and evaluation challenges.

Aims and Objectives

This systematic literature review (SLR) assessed study designs, methodologies, and outcomes reported in real-world investigations of rare disease patient journeys.

Methods

Searches in PubMed and Google Scholar targeted English-language publications and congress proceedings from 1 January 2014, to 30 April 2024, including rare disease patients, caregivers, or healthcare providers. Keywords included ‘Journey’, ‘Path’, or ‘Odyssey’. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and abstracted data. Descriptive analyses and quality assessments were conducted.

Results

Thirty-one studies met inclusion criteria, with 296,548 participants spanning over 600 rare diseases. Most studies used prospective observational (61%) and cross-sectional (26%) designs and were conducted in Europe (45%). Interviews (39%) and surveys (29%) were common methodologies. Patients (87%) were the primary research focus, compared to caregivers (32%) or providers (10%). The most studied journey stages were ‘Pre-diagnosis/Screening’ (97%) and ‘Diagnosis’ (84%), while ‘Disease Awareness’ (16%) and ‘Treatment Adherence’ (6%) were less common. Across 164 outcomes reported, frequent outcomes included ‘Healthcare Resource Utilization’ (94%), ‘Symptoms’ (74%), and ‘Time-to-Diagnosis’ (71%). Fewer studies reported ‘Costs’ (19%), ‘Caregiver/Family Burden’ (16%), and ‘Productivity’ (13%). Time-to-diagnosis averaged 11.8 years and a median of 6.1 years. All but one study (97%) was rated low or very low quality due to observational designs.

Conclusion

Most rare disease patient journey evidence focuses on ‘Pre-diagnosis/Screening’ and ‘Diagnosis’ stages using qualitative methods and surveys. While symptoms, time-to-diagnosis, and resource utilization were commonly reported, evidence gaps included treatment adherence, caregiver burden and productivity. Longitudinal assessments to collect real-world care and treatment burden outcomes, including caregiver perspectives, can enhance both clinician and policy decision-making for individuals living with rare diseases.

Abstract Image

捕捉真实世界的罕见疾病患者旅程:当前的方法是否足以做出明智的医疗决策?
尽管医疗保健决策者越来越重视患者的观点和现实世界的结果,以告知护理和获取决策,但由于数据收集和评估方面的挑战,对罕见病患者旅程经历的理解仍然有限。目的和目的本系统文献综述(SLR)评估了罕见病患者旅程中真实世界调查报告的研究设计、方法和结果。方法在PubMed和谷歌Scholar中检索2014年1月1日至2024年4月30日期间的英语出版物和会议论文集,包括罕见疾病患者、护理人员或医疗保健提供者。关键词包括“旅程”、“路径”或“奥德赛”。两名审稿人独立评估合格性并提取数据。进行了描述性分析和质量评估。结果31项研究符合纳入标准,共有296,548名参与者,涵盖600多种罕见病。大多数研究采用前瞻性观察(61%)和横断面(26%)设计,并在欧洲进行(45%)。访谈(39%)和调查(29%)是常见的方法。患者(87%)是主要的研究焦点,而护理人员(32%)或提供者(10%)是主要的研究焦点。研究最多的旅程阶段是“预诊断/筛查”(97%)和“诊断”(84%),而“疾病意识”(16%)和“治疗依从性”(6%)则不太常见。在报告的164个结果中,常见的结果包括“医疗资源利用率”(94%)、“症状”(74%)和“诊断时间”(71%)。较少的研究报告了“成本”(19%)、“照顾者/家庭负担”(16%)和“生产力”(13%)。诊断时间平均为11.8年,中位数为6.1年。由于观察性设计,除了一项研究(97%)外,所有研究都被评为低质量或极低质量。结论大多数罕见病患者旅程证据主要集中在“预诊断/筛查”和“诊断”阶段,采用定性方法和调查。虽然通常报告了症状、诊断时间和资源利用情况,但证据差距包括治疗依从性、护理人员负担和生产力。收集真实世界护理和治疗负担结果的纵向评估,包括护理人员的观点,可以增强罕见病患者的临床医生和政策决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信