IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v13y2020i6d10.1007_s40271-020-00460-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient Engagement Partnerships in Clinical Trials: Development of Patient Partner and Investigator Decision Aids

Author

Listed:
  • Monica Parry

    (University of Toronto)

  • Ann Kristin Bjørnnes

    (Oslo Metropolitan University)

  • Karine Toupin-April

    (University of Ottawa
    University of Ottawa)

  • Adhiyat Najam

    (Patient Partner, Diabetes Action Canada)

  • David Wells

    (Patient Partner, Diabetes Action Canada)

  • Aditi Sivakumar

    (University of Ottawa)

  • Dawn P. Richards

    (Clinical Trials Ontario)

  • Tina Ceroni

    (Patient Partner, Clinical Trials Ontario)

  • Marianne Park

    (Patient Partner, Network of Women with Disabilities)

  • Anne K. Ellis

    (Queen’s University)

  • Ian Gilron

    (Queen’s University)

  • Susan Marlin

    (Patient Partner, Diabetes Action Canada)

Abstract

Background A 2017 systematic review suggested patient engagement in clinical trials has been limited, with little active engagement in trial design or data analysis, interpretation or dissemination. Additionally, there remains limited sex/gender reporting in clinical trial research. Objectives The overall goal of this project was to disseminate sex/gender knowledge and build capacity for patient engagement in clinical trials. Specific objectives were to (1) create capacity and identify opportunities for patient engagement in clinical trials and sponsor- or investigator-led activities (e.g. clinical trial design and conduct); and (2) enhance new/early investigator sex/gender knowledge and skills related to patient-oriented research (POR). Methods We used the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) Capacity Development Framework and the SPOR Patient Engagement Framework to guide three phases of this project: (1) conduct a scoping review using methods described by the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information (EPPI) and the Coordinating Centre at the Institute of Education (Phase 1); (2) host a 1-day POR consultation workshop (Phase 2); and (3) deliver a new/early investigator POR training day (Phase 3). Six electronic databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, the Cochrane Library, and AMED) were searched from 1996 using keywords and Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms in accordance with the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) and the search criteria in the bibliographic databases. Standard approaches were used to search the grey literature. Results A total of 79 studies and over 150 websites were subject to data abstraction by team members, capturing information on sex/gender and SPOR’s patient engagement guiding principles of inclusiveness, support, mutual respect, and co-building. Results were presented to 32 key stakeholders at the consultation workshop and input was sought on next steps using nominal group techniques. Based on the plethora of existing POR resources, relevant POR information from the scoping review was collated into two decision aids (patient and investigator) to determine readiness to engage with/as a patient partner in a clinical trial. The decision aids were presented at a POR training day with 88 new/early investigators, clinicians, patient partners and decision makers. The decision aids showed ‘good’ usability, assessed using the System Usability Scale (SUS). Attendees thought the decision aids were engaging, they increased their understanding of sex/gender, patient engagement and POR, and they would recommend them to others. POR principles and practices were integrated across all phases of the project. Patient partners (1) identified research priorities/search terms; (2) collected/analyzed data; (3) designed the patient partner decision aid; and (4) disseminated the results through presentation. Conclusion Our digital patient partner and investigator decision aids are the first to provide information technology to deliver sex/gender, POR knowledge, and decision support beyond the traditional decision aids used for health screening and/or treatment decisions. The decision aids have the potential to make a significant contribution to Canada’s Strategy for POR and support the collaborative efforts of patients and investigators to build a sustainable, accessible and equitable health care system.

Suggested Citation

  • Monica Parry & Ann Kristin Bjørnnes & Karine Toupin-April & Adhiyat Najam & David Wells & Aditi Sivakumar & Dawn P. Richards & Tina Ceroni & Marianne Park & Anne K. Ellis & Ian Gilron & Susan Marlin, 2020. "Patient Engagement Partnerships in Clinical Trials: Development of Patient Partner and Investigator Decision Aids," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(6), pages 745-756, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:13:y:2020:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-020-00460-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-020-00460-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-020-00460-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-020-00460-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Patrick M. Archambault & Sabrina Guay-Bélanger & Véronique Gélinas & Anik Giguère & Claire Ludwig & Mame Awa Ndiaye & Kathy Kastner & Dawn Stacey & Nick Bansback & Gary Groot & France Légaré, 2020. "Patient-Oriented Research from the ISDM 2019 Conference: A Legacy Now More Relevant Than Ever," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(6), pages 649-652, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:13:y:2020:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-020-00460-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.