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, Lucas T. A. Blackmore, Asia R. Banks, Da Sol Kim, 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.
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.