Patient and public involvement and engagement in real world data and evidence research across the medicines development cycle: a rapid review of peer-reviewed literature and NICE technology appraisals.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Current Medical Research and Opinion Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-31 DOI:10.1080/03007995.2025.2482668
Sally-Anne Dews, Arisa Oluwatomi, Alex Inskip, Opeyemi Agbeleye, Sarah Markham, Peter Latchford, Natalie Bohm, Polly Westergaard, Rebecca Butfield, Alexia Campbell-Burton, Nick Meader, Akvile Stoniute
{"title":"Patient and public involvement and engagement in real world data and evidence research across the medicines development cycle: a rapid review of peer-reviewed literature and NICE technology appraisals.","authors":"Sally-Anne Dews, Arisa Oluwatomi, Alex Inskip, Opeyemi Agbeleye, Sarah Markham, Peter Latchford, Natalie Bohm, Polly Westergaard, Rebecca Butfield, Alexia Campbell-Burton, Nick Meader, Akvile Stoniute","doi":"10.1080/03007995.2025.2482668","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of this rapid review is to understand the reporting, role and quality of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in real world data and evidence (RWDE) research across the medicines development cycle.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We comprehensively searched, with no date restrictions, Medline and Embase databases for peer-reviewed literature and conference abstracts (Embase only) reporting PPIE in RWD studies. We also assessed PPIE in a sample of 100 NICE technology appraisals (TAs) comprising both single technology appraisals (STAs) and highly specialized technologies (HSTs). We used standard methods for screening and data extraction. In addition, we used the Patient Focused Medicines Development (PFMD)'s Patient Engagement Quality Guidance (PEQG) as a framework to assess the quality of PPIE. We planned to conduct narrative synthesis of included studies, however there were insufficient studies and data reported.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included three RWD studies that reported PPIE from the peer-reviewed literature and two NICE HSTs. One of the HSTs included data from one of the peer-reviewed journal articles. Reporting of PPIE in included studies was limited. No studies reported a PPIE framework and it was unclear how integrated and meaningful PPIE was. Four out of seven of PFMD's quality criteria for PPIE were poorly reported by included studies. This suggests reporting and/or conduct of PPIE requires improvement in RWD studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our review found that PPIE was rarely reported in RWDE research and uncovers a need for consistent reporting. For most publications there was insufficient information to judge the extent to which patients and carers, were considered meaningful partners. However, our review provided preliminary evidence that PPIE can influence protocol development, recruitment, and retention methods in RWD studies. More inclusive approaches to PPIE would help interpretation of RWE regarding relevance and importance to patients and carers.</p>","PeriodicalId":10814,"journal":{"name":"Current Medical Research and Opinion","volume":" ","pages":"521-533"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Medical Research and Opinion","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2025.2482668","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this rapid review is to understand the reporting, role and quality of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in real world data and evidence (RWDE) research across the medicines development cycle.

Methods: We comprehensively searched, with no date restrictions, Medline and Embase databases for peer-reviewed literature and conference abstracts (Embase only) reporting PPIE in RWD studies. We also assessed PPIE in a sample of 100 NICE technology appraisals (TAs) comprising both single technology appraisals (STAs) and highly specialized technologies (HSTs). We used standard methods for screening and data extraction. In addition, we used the Patient Focused Medicines Development (PFMD)'s Patient Engagement Quality Guidance (PEQG) as a framework to assess the quality of PPIE. We planned to conduct narrative synthesis of included studies, however there were insufficient studies and data reported.

Results: We included three RWD studies that reported PPIE from the peer-reviewed literature and two NICE HSTs. One of the HSTs included data from one of the peer-reviewed journal articles. Reporting of PPIE in included studies was limited. No studies reported a PPIE framework and it was unclear how integrated and meaningful PPIE was. Four out of seven of PFMD's quality criteria for PPIE were poorly reported by included studies. This suggests reporting and/or conduct of PPIE requires improvement in RWD studies.

Conclusions: Our review found that PPIE was rarely reported in RWDE research and uncovers a need for consistent reporting. For most publications there was insufficient information to judge the extent to which patients and carers, were considered meaningful partners. However, our review provided preliminary evidence that PPIE can influence protocol development, recruitment, and retention methods in RWD studies. More inclusive approaches to PPIE would help interpretation of RWE regarding relevance and importance to patients and carers.

患者和公众参与和参与整个药物开发周期的真实世界数据和证据研究:对同行评议文献和NICE技术评估的快速审查。
目的:本快速综述的目的是了解整个药物开发周期中患者和公众参与和参与(PPIE)在真实世界数据和证据(RWDE)研究中的报告、作用和质量。方法:我们在Medline和Embase数据库中全面检索了报道RWD研究中PPIE的同行评审文献和会议摘要(仅限Embase),没有日期限制。我们还在100个NICE技术评估(TAs)样本中评估了PPIE,这些评估包括单一技术评估(sta)和高度专业化技术评估(HSTs)。我们采用标准的筛选和数据提取方法。此外,我们使用以患者为中心的药物开发(PFMD)的患者参与质量指南(PEQG)作为评估PPIE质量的框架。我们计划对纳入的研究进行叙述性综合,但研究和数据报道不足。结果:我们纳入了来自同行评议文献的3项报告PPIE的RWD研究和2项NICE hst。其中一个HSTs包括了一篇同行评议的期刊文章的数据。纳入的研究中关于PPIE的报道是有限的。没有研究报告PPIE框架,也不清楚PPIE的整合程度和意义。在纳入的研究中,PFMD对PPIE的7项质量标准中有4项报告不佳。这表明PPIE的报告和/或实施需要改进RWD研究。结论:我们的综述发现,在RWDE研究中很少有关于PPIE的报道,这表明需要一致的报道。对于大多数出版物来说,没有足够的信息来判断患者和护理人员在多大程度上被认为是有意义的伙伴。然而,我们的综述提供了初步证据,证明PPIE可以影响RWD研究的方案制定、招募和保留方法。更包容的PPIE方法将有助于解释RWE对患者和护理人员的相关性和重要性。
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
Current Medical Research and Opinion
Current Medical Research and Opinion 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.30%
发文量
247
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Current Medical Research and Opinion is a MEDLINE-indexed, peer-reviewed, international journal for the rapid publication of original research on new and existing drugs and therapies, Phase II-IV studies, and post-marketing investigations. Equivalence, safety and efficacy/effectiveness studies are especially encouraged. Preclinical, Phase I, pharmacoeconomic, outcomes and quality of life studies may also be considered if there is clear clinical relevance
×
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