Cited by 60Mental Health and Patient InvolvementEthics in Clinical ResearchPharmaceutical industry and healthcare

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Measuring the Impact of Patient Engagement and Patient Centricity in Clinical Research and Development

Stergiopoulos, Stella, Michaels, Debra L., Kunz, Barbara Lopez, Getz, Kenneth A.·2020·Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science

Abstract

Background Recently, drug development companies have sought out patient feedback to improve overall drug development. However, characterization of the overall impact and return on engaging with patients have not been determined. Methods The Drug Information Association (DIA), the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (Tufts CSDD), and 17 other stakeholder organizations collaborated on a study to (1) quantify and define patient-centric initiatives (PCIs) utilized in clinical research and development and (2) to define evidence-based metrics and performance indicators that demonstrate return on engagement (ROE) of specific PCIs. We conducted a literature review, industry surveys, and in-depth interviews to determine and measure the impact of adopted PCIs. Results We identified and defined 30 PCIs used to engage with patients. We analyzed 121 case studies and created a comprehensive list of metrics assessing overall return to the organization and to patients. Advocacy Group Support and Involvement, Conducting Patient Advisory Panels, and Focus Groups were examples of PCIs with the lowest cost and largest impact with respect to quality, speed, and impact on the patient relative to other PCIs. Conclusion The results from the literature review and use cases provide drug development teams with evidence and insights to help facilitate the adoption of specific PCIs within their organization and to help select those initiatives that would provide the highest impact to patients and development organizations. It is also hoped that the biopharmaceutical industry will apply the standardized metrics in the toolkit to systematically assess the overall return on engagement.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s43441-019-00034-0

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Stergiopoulos, S., Michaels, D. L., Kunz, B. L., & Getz, K. A.
Affiliations
Tufts University (US)
Corresponding author
Stergiopoulos, Stella
Venue
Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science
Published
2020-01
Volume
54
Issue
1
Pages
103-116
ISSN
  • 2168-4790 (ISSN-L)
  • 2168-4804
OpenAlex
W2999612907
Cited by
60
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 4
FWCI
7.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Keywords
patient engagement, patient-centricity, drug development, performance indicators, focus groups, advocacy organizations, biopharmaceutical industry, patient feedback

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review