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

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 and Susan Marlin
Additional contact information
Monica Parry: University of Toronto
Ann Kristin Bjørnnes: Oslo Metropolitan University
Karine Toupin-April: 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

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2020, vol. 13, issue 6, No 11, 745-756

Abstract: 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.

Date: 2020
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-020-00460-5 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:patien:v:13:y:2020:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-020-00460-5

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40271

DOI: 10.1007/s40271-020-00460-5

Access Statistics for this article

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research is currently edited by Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research from Springer, International Academy of Health Preference Research
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().