Using Mixed Methods to Evaluate Risk Minimisation Programs in Europe and the USA: An Innovative Blueprint

Meredith Y. Smith (), Rachel Davis, Priya Bahri, Delphine Saragoussi, Viviana Nguyen, Gita A. Toyserkani and Alison Hamilton
Additional contact information
Meredith Y. Smith: Evidera, Inc.
Rachel Davis: Evidera, Inc.
Priya Bahri: European Medicines Agency
Delphine Saragoussi: Sanofi
Viviana Nguyen: Evidera, Inc.
Gita A. Toyserkani: US Food and Drug Administration
Alison Hamilton: Veterans Administration (VA) Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation, and Policy, VA Greater los Angeles Healthcare System

Drug Safety, 2025, vol. 48, issue 7, No 9, 838 pages

Abstract: Abstract Background Significant methodological shortcomings have been documented to date in risk minimisation program evaluations for medicinal products, including overreliance on survey methods alone. Recently updated guidances from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) recommend the use of frameworks and mixed methods designs to improve the rigor of these assessments. Objective The purpose of this paper was to exemplify how a mixed methods approach, guided by an implementation science framework, can be used to design the evaluation of a risk minimisation program. Methods We selected the Practical, Robust, Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) as the implementation science framework to guide our mixed methods approach. PRISM provides a comprehensive and systematic approach to measuring the key domains relevant to the implementation and outcomes of a risk minimisation program. We mapped the PRISM domains to the evaluation dimensions described in the EMA and FDA guidances. We then specified a mixed methods evaluation design and data collection methods using a fictitious risk minimisation program as a case study for illustrative purposes. Results On the basis of our case study, we developed quantitative and qualitative measures, including specific items for surveys and interviews, for both formative and summative evaluations. For both the formative and summative evaluations, measures focussed on assessing (1) contextual factors that could affect program implementation and impact and (2) outcomes including implementability and acceptability as well as degree of program reach, adoption, implementation, effectiveness and maintenance. Conclusions Mixed methods, guided by a well-established implementation science framework, can be applied to ensure comprehensive formative and summative evaluations that provide fit-for-purpose information that may inform regulatory decision-making.

Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40264-025-01533-w Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:48:y:2025:i:7:d:10.1007_s40264-025-01533-w

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/adis/journal/40264

DOI: 10.1007/s40264-025-01533-w

Access Statistics for this article

Drug Safety is currently edited by Nitin Joshi

More articles in Drug Safety from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().