Patient involvement in publications: qualitative mapping of the current landscape within the pharmaceutical industry.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Adeline Rosenberg, Liz Clark, Graham R McClelland
{"title":"Patient involvement in publications: qualitative mapping of the current landscape within the pharmaceutical industry.","authors":"Adeline Rosenberg, Liz Clark, Graham R McClelland","doi":"10.1080/03007995.2025.2545496","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Patient involvement in pharmaceutical industry-sponsored publications is a rapidly evolving practice. It is supported by industry guidelines, but currently inconsistent across organizations. This study aimed to qualitatively map the landscape of current practices and gaps in patient involvement in peer-reviewed journal publications of pharmaceutical industry-sponsored research, and to define the specific roles and activities in which patients are involved.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This qualitative, patient-led study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with purposively sampled experts in patient engagement and publications, including patients. Interviews were conducted online, transcribed, and thematically analysed. Landscape elements were visually mapped, and themes were generated through an inductive and experientially situated thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Interviews were conducted with 20 participants recruited globally, with a majority from the United Kingdom. Participants represented diverse stakeholder categories and reported patient involvement across all stages and aspects of the publication lifecycle, with patients both as external consultants and as professionals working within the system. Five overarching themes and 20 sub-themes were identified, including: patient identities and roles; principles and values; processes and practices; variations over time and across organizations; and impact. Significant gaps were identified in consistency, quality, and scale, for example including gaps in infrastructure barriers and diversity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patient involvement in pharmaceutical publications is actively happening across the publication lifecycle and is rapidly growing and evolving. This study provides an evidence base <i>via</i> a qualitative mapping of the experiential landscape and highlights the need for established best practices to support consistency and quality in meaningful patient involvement in publications.</p>","PeriodicalId":10814,"journal":{"name":"Current Medical Research and Opinion","volume":" ","pages":"1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","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/10.1080/03007995.2025.2545496","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Patient involvement in pharmaceutical industry-sponsored publications is a rapidly evolving practice. It is supported by industry guidelines, but currently inconsistent across organizations. This study aimed to qualitatively map the landscape of current practices and gaps in patient involvement in peer-reviewed journal publications of pharmaceutical industry-sponsored research, and to define the specific roles and activities in which patients are involved.

Methods: This qualitative, patient-led study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with purposively sampled experts in patient engagement and publications, including patients. Interviews were conducted online, transcribed, and thematically analysed. Landscape elements were visually mapped, and themes were generated through an inductive and experientially situated thematic analysis.

Results: Interviews were conducted with 20 participants recruited globally, with a majority from the United Kingdom. Participants represented diverse stakeholder categories and reported patient involvement across all stages and aspects of the publication lifecycle, with patients both as external consultants and as professionals working within the system. Five overarching themes and 20 sub-themes were identified, including: patient identities and roles; principles and values; processes and practices; variations over time and across organizations; and impact. Significant gaps were identified in consistency, quality, and scale, for example including gaps in infrastructure barriers and diversity.

Conclusions: Patient involvement in pharmaceutical publications is actively happening across the publication lifecycle and is rapidly growing and evolving. This study provides an evidence base via a qualitative mapping of the experiential landscape and highlights the need for established best practices to support consistency and quality in meaningful patient involvement in publications.

患者参与出版物:制药行业内当前景观的定性绘图。
目的:患者参与制药行业赞助的出版物是一个快速发展的实践。它得到了行业指南的支持,但目前各组织之间不一致。本研究旨在定性地描绘当前在医药行业赞助研究的同行评审期刊出版物中患者参与的实践和差距,并定义患者参与的具体角色和活动。方法:这项定性的,以患者为主导的研究是通过半结构化的访谈进行的,有目的地抽样了患者参与和出版物方面的专家,包括患者。采访是在线进行的,经过转录和主题分析。景观元素在视觉上被映射,主题通过归纳和体验性的主题分析产生。结果:对全球招募的20名参与者进行了访谈,其中大多数来自英国。参与者代表了不同的利益相关者类别,并报告了患者在出版生命周期的各个阶段和各个方面的参与情况,患者既是外部顾问,也是系统内工作的专业人员。确定了5个总体主题和20个次级主题,包括:患者身份和角色;原则和价值观;程序和做法;随时间和组织的变化;和影响。确定了一致性、质量和规模方面的重大差距,例如包括基础设施障碍和多样性方面的差距。结论:患者对医药出版物的参与在整个出版生命周期中都在积极发生,并且正在迅速增长和发展。本研究通过对经验景观的定性映射提供了证据基础,并强调了建立最佳实践的必要性,以支持有意义的患者参与出版物的一致性和质量。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信