评估和比较临床癌症研究中的患者参与:使用结构化评估工具的欧洲和日本之间的跨区域分析

IF 2 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Laureline Gatellier , Beatrice Serckx , Lode Dewulf , Nicholas Brooke , Bertrand Tombal , Hadrien Charvat , Keiko Katsui , Yoshiyuki Majima , Jin Higashijima , Kazuyuki Suzuki , Ingrid Klingmann , Beata Juzyna , Iryna Shakhnenko , Kenichi Nakamura , Tomohiro Matsuda
{"title":"评估和比较临床癌症研究中的患者参与:使用结构化评估工具的欧洲和日本之间的跨区域分析","authors":"Laureline Gatellier ,&nbsp;Beatrice Serckx ,&nbsp;Lode Dewulf ,&nbsp;Nicholas Brooke ,&nbsp;Bertrand Tombal ,&nbsp;Hadrien Charvat ,&nbsp;Keiko Katsui ,&nbsp;Yoshiyuki Majima ,&nbsp;Jin Higashijima ,&nbsp;Kazuyuki Suzuki ,&nbsp;Ingrid Klingmann ,&nbsp;Beata Juzyna ,&nbsp;Iryna Shakhnenko ,&nbsp;Kenichi Nakamura ,&nbsp;Tomohiro Matsuda","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100634","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Meaningful patient engagement (PE) is increasingly recognized as a critical element of clinical cancer research. Policy frameworks in Europe and Japan reflect growing support for involving patients in research and policymaking. However, tools to assess the actual implementation of PE in clinical trials remain limited. This study introduces a structured, self-evaluation tool for principal investigators (PIs) to assess PE and compares its application to academic trials across Europe and Japan.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A two-dimensional matrix was developed to evaluate PE across eight key research steps—research priorities, fundraising, protocol development, informed consent, ethical review, investigator meetings, reporting, and regulatory submission—against five engagement levels (0: none to 4: co-creation). The tool was refined to ensure linguistic and contextual applicability in both regions. A structured questionnaire incorporating the matrix was distributed to PIs identified from public databases. Statistical analyses were conducted to compare PE practices between both regions.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among 178 European and 123 Japanese trials, PI response rate were 24.2 % (n = 43) and 52.0 % (n = 64), respectively. Across all research steps, 60.7 % of European and 80.6 % of Japan trials contained no PE. However, PE was reported in at least one step in 86.0 % of European and 39.1 % of Japanese trials. When engaging, European trials showed higher levels in protocol development, informed consent, ethical review, and reporting steps than Japan (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.001 for all).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This study developed a simple, structured tool to assess PE and applied it to trials in Europe and Japan. It revealed regional differences across culturally and structurally distinct systems, demonstrating its value for cross-context comparison and broader application.</div></div><div><h3>Policy summary</h3><div>By enabling structured assessment and monitoring of PE, this tool supports the implementation of engagement policies across regions. Its adaptability may foster shared learning and cross-border collaboration, especially in regions where engagement frameworks are still emerging.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"46 ","pages":"Article 100634"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing and comparing patient engagement in clinical cancer research: A cross-regional analysis between Europe and Japan using a structured evaluation tool\",\"authors\":\"Laureline Gatellier ,&nbsp;Beatrice Serckx ,&nbsp;Lode Dewulf ,&nbsp;Nicholas Brooke ,&nbsp;Bertrand Tombal ,&nbsp;Hadrien Charvat ,&nbsp;Keiko Katsui ,&nbsp;Yoshiyuki Majima ,&nbsp;Jin Higashijima ,&nbsp;Kazuyuki Suzuki ,&nbsp;Ingrid Klingmann ,&nbsp;Beata Juzyna ,&nbsp;Iryna Shakhnenko ,&nbsp;Kenichi Nakamura ,&nbsp;Tomohiro Matsuda\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100634\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Meaningful patient engagement (PE) is increasingly recognized as a critical element of clinical cancer research. Policy frameworks in Europe and Japan reflect growing support for involving patients in research and policymaking. However, tools to assess the actual implementation of PE in clinical trials remain limited. This study introduces a structured, self-evaluation tool for principal investigators (PIs) to assess PE and compares its application to academic trials across Europe and Japan.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A two-dimensional matrix was developed to evaluate PE across eight key research steps—research priorities, fundraising, protocol development, informed consent, ethical review, investigator meetings, reporting, and regulatory submission—against five engagement levels (0: none to 4: co-creation). The tool was refined to ensure linguistic and contextual applicability in both regions. A structured questionnaire incorporating the matrix was distributed to PIs identified from public databases. Statistical analyses were conducted to compare PE practices between both regions.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among 178 European and 123 Japanese trials, PI response rate were 24.2 % (n = 43) and 52.0 % (n = 64), respectively. Across all research steps, 60.7 % of European and 80.6 % of Japan trials contained no PE. However, PE was reported in at least one step in 86.0 % of European and 39.1 % of Japanese trials. When engaging, European trials showed higher levels in protocol development, informed consent, ethical review, and reporting steps than Japan (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.001 for all).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This study developed a simple, structured tool to assess PE and applied it to trials in Europe and Japan. It revealed regional differences across culturally and structurally distinct systems, demonstrating its value for cross-context comparison and broader application.</div></div><div><h3>Policy summary</h3><div>By enabling structured assessment and monitoring of PE, this tool supports the implementation of engagement policies across regions. Its adaptability may foster shared learning and cross-border collaboration, especially in regions where engagement frameworks are still emerging.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38212,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cancer Policy\",\"volume\":\"46 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100634\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cancer Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213538325000785\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213538325000785","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

有意义的患者参与(PE)越来越被认为是临床癌症研究的一个关键因素。欧洲和日本的政策框架反映出越来越多的人支持让患者参与研究和决策。然而,评估PE在临床试验中的实际实施的工具仍然有限。本研究为主要研究者(pi)引入了一种结构化的自我评估工具来评估PE,并比较了其在欧洲和日本的学术试验中的应用。方法开发了一个二维矩阵,根据五个参与水平(0:无参与到4:共同创造)评估八个关键研究步骤(研究优先级、筹款、方案制定、知情同意、伦理审查、研究者会议、报告和监管提交)的PE。该工具经过改进,以确保在两个地区的语言和上下文的适用性。将包含矩阵的结构化问卷分发给从公共数据库确定的pi。对两个地区的体育实践进行了统计分析比较。结果178项欧洲试验和123项日本试验中,PI有效率分别为24.2% % (n = 43)和52.0 % (n = 64)。在所有的研究步骤中,60.7% %的欧洲试验和80.6% %的日本试验没有PE。然而,在86.0 %的欧洲试验和39.1% %的日本试验中,至少有一步发生了PE。在参与试验时,欧洲试验在方案制定、知情同意、伦理审查和报告步骤方面的水平高于日本(p <; 0.001)。本研究开发了一种简单、结构化的评估PE的工具,并将其应用于欧洲和日本的试验。它揭示了文化和结构不同的系统之间的区域差异,显示了跨背景比较的价值和更广泛的应用。政策摘要通过对教育教育进行结构化评估和监测,该工具支持跨区域实施参与政策。它的适应性可以促进共享学习和跨境合作,特别是在参与框架仍在形成的地区。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing and comparing patient engagement in clinical cancer research: A cross-regional analysis between Europe and Japan using a structured evaluation tool

Background

Meaningful patient engagement (PE) is increasingly recognized as a critical element of clinical cancer research. Policy frameworks in Europe and Japan reflect growing support for involving patients in research and policymaking. However, tools to assess the actual implementation of PE in clinical trials remain limited. This study introduces a structured, self-evaluation tool for principal investigators (PIs) to assess PE and compares its application to academic trials across Europe and Japan.

Methods

A two-dimensional matrix was developed to evaluate PE across eight key research steps—research priorities, fundraising, protocol development, informed consent, ethical review, investigator meetings, reporting, and regulatory submission—against five engagement levels (0: none to 4: co-creation). The tool was refined to ensure linguistic and contextual applicability in both regions. A structured questionnaire incorporating the matrix was distributed to PIs identified from public databases. Statistical analyses were conducted to compare PE practices between both regions.

Results

Among 178 European and 123 Japanese trials, PI response rate were 24.2 % (n = 43) and 52.0 % (n = 64), respectively. Across all research steps, 60.7 % of European and 80.6 % of Japan trials contained no PE. However, PE was reported in at least one step in 86.0 % of European and 39.1 % of Japanese trials. When engaging, European trials showed higher levels in protocol development, informed consent, ethical review, and reporting steps than Japan (p < 0.001 for all).

Conclusion

This study developed a simple, structured tool to assess PE and applied it to trials in Europe and Japan. It revealed regional differences across culturally and structurally distinct systems, demonstrating its value for cross-context comparison and broader application.

Policy summary

By enabling structured assessment and monitoring of PE, this tool supports the implementation of engagement policies across regions. Its adaptability may foster shared learning and cross-border collaboration, especially in regions where engagement frameworks are still emerging.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Cancer Policy
Journal of Cancer Policy Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
7.70%
发文量
47
审稿时长
65 days
×
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