Cited by 173Mental Health and Patient InvolvementHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifePatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

Evaluating the “return on patient engagement initiatives” in medicines research and development: A literature review

Open access
Vat, Lidewij Eva, Finlay, Teresa, Jan Schuitmaker‐Warnaar, Tjerk, Fahy, Nick, Robinson, Paul, Boudes, Mathieu, Diaz, Ana, Ferrer, Elisa +6 more·2020·Health Expectations

Abstract

Background: Showing how engagement adds value for all stakeholders can be an effective motivator for broader implementation of patient engagement. However, it is unclear what methods can best be used to evaluate patient engagement. This paper is focused on ways to evaluate patient engagement at three decision‐making points in the medicines research and development process: research priority setting, clinical trial design and early dialogues with regulators and health technology assessment bodies. Objective: Our aim was to review the literature on monitoring and evaluation of patient engagement, with a focus on indicators and methods. Search strategy and inclusion criteria: We undertook a scoping literature review using a systematic search, including academic and grey literature with a focus on evaluation approaches or outcomes associated with patient engagement. No date limits were applied other than a cut‐off of publications after July 2018. Data extraction and synthesis: Data were extracted from 91 publications, coded and thematically analysed. Main results: A total of 18 benefits and 5 costs of patient engagement were identified, mapped with 28 possible indicators for their evaluation. Several quantitative and qualitative methods were found for the evaluation of benefits and costs of patient engagement. Discussion and conclusions: Currently available indicators and methods are of some use in measuring impact but are not sufficient to understand the pathway to impact, nor whether interaction between researchers and patients leads to change. We suggest that the impacts of patient engagement can best be determined not by applying single indicators, but a coherent set of measures.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/hex.12951

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The mechanisms through which the benefits of youth engagement are achieved have rarely been articulated or tested.

    “Yet, the mechanisms through which these benefits are achieved have rarely been articulated or tested, highlighting the lack of evaluation studies as one of the most critical gaps in the literature.”

    From A systematic review of theories, models and frameworks used for youth engagement in health research (2024) · cites this paper as [59]

    The Introduction says evaluations of patient engagement have not adequately captured mechanisms of change, and the Discussion says available indicators are insufficient to explain the pathway to impact. This supports the general concern about limited evaluation, but the review concerns patient engagement in medicines research and development, not youth engagement specifically; it also does not establish that mechanisms have rarely been articulated or tested. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • This casts doubt upon the feasibility of adequate dissemination of research information among research-participating communities.

    “This casts doubt upon the feasibility of adequate dissemination of research information among research-participating communities. 349”

    From European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Ethics of resuscitation and end of life decisions (2021) · cites this paper as [349]

    The Results section says the review omitted benefits and costs concerning the dissemination of results. Its discussion of accessible information for research participants (Results, “Benefits, costs and challenges for stakeholders”; page unavailable) does not assess whether adequate dissemination to participating communities is feasible. Searched for dissemination and barriers to communicating research information. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [8]Wilson P, Mathie E, Keenan J, et al. Research with patient and public involvement: a realist evaluation – the RAPPORT study. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2015. https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hsdr/hsdr03380/#/plain-english-summary. Accessed June 10, 2019. 26378332
  2. [27]Evans D, Coad J, Cottrell K, et al. Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2014 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK260168/. Accessed October 6, 2019. 25642514
  3. [55]Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Seers K, Herron‐Marx S, Bayliss H. The PIRICOM study. 2010 http://www.ukcrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Piricom+Review+Final+2010.pdf. Accessed October 6, 2019.
  4. [67]Public Involvement Impact Assessment Framework (PiiAF) Study Group. Tabular summary of findings from a review of reported impacts of public involvement in research from PiiAF study group’s evidence review. 2013 http://piiaf.org.uk/documents/impacts-summary-1113.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2018.
  5. [91]Drug Information Association (DIA). Capturing the value of patient engagement. 2017 https://www.diaglobal.org/en/resources/press-releases/2016/10-31-patient-engagement-study. Accessed June 7, 2018.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vat, L. E., Finlay, T., Jan Schuitmaker‐Warnaar, T., Fahy, N., Robinson, P., Boudes, M., Diaz, A., Ferrer, E., Hivert, V., Purman, G., Kürzinger, M., Kroes, R. A., Hey, C., & Broerse, J. E. W.
Affiliations
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Athena Institute Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands
  • MSD (UK) Limited (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • European Patients Forum (LU)
  • Alzheimer Europe (LU)
  • European Organisation for Rare Diseases (FR)
  • Nexgen Healthcare Communications London UK
  • Sanofi (France) (FR)
  • Eli Lilly (Netherlands) (NL)
  • Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt (Germany) (DE)
Corresponding author
Vat, Lidewij Eva
Venue
Health Expectations
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-09-06
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
5-18
ISSN
  • 1369-6513 (ISSN-L)
  • 1369-7625
OpenAlex
W2960953958
Cited by
173
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 5
FWCI
2.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Expectations (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Radar (Oxford Brookes University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Innovative Medicines Initiative (777450)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
patient engagement, evaluation metrics, research prioritization, clinical trial design, regulatory dialogue, health technology assessment, stakeholder engagement
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Family, Humans, Patient Participation, Research

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