Building Infrastructure to Exploit Evidence from Patient Preference Information (PPI) Studies: A Conceptual Blueprint
Source abstract
Abstract
Patients are the most important actors in clinical research. Therefore, patient preference information (PPI) could support the decision-making process, being indisputable for research value, quality, and integrity. However, there is a lack of clear guidance or consensus on the search for preference studies. In this blueprint, an openly available and regularly updated patient preference management system for an integrated database (PPMSDB) that contains the minimal set of data sufficient to provide detailed information for each study (the so-called evidence tables in systematic reviews) and a high-level overview of the findings of a review (summary tables) is described. These tables could help determine which studies, if any, are eligible for quantitative synthesis. Finally, a web platform would provide a graphical and user-friendly interface. On the other hand, a set of APIs (application programming interfaces) would also be developed and provided. The PPMSDB, aims to collect preference measures, characteristics, and meta-data, and allow researchers to obtain a quick overview of a research field, use the latest evidence, and identify research gaps. In conjunction with proper statistical analysis of quantitative preference measures, these aspects can facilitate formal evidence-based decisions and adequate consideration when conducting a structured decision-making process. Our objective is to outline the conceptual infrastructure necessary to build and maintain a successful network that can monitor the currentness and validity of evidence.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life · Meta-analysis and systematic reviews · Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Cardiac Thoracic Vascular Sciences and Public Health, University of Padova, Via Loredan 18, 35121 Padova, Italy
ClinOpsHub s.r.l., 72023 Mesagne, Italy
Department of Clinical and Biological Sciences, University of Turin, 10124 Torino, Italy
References (45)
Show source-provided references
1. Up the Garden Path and over the Edge: Where Might Health-Seeking Behaviour Take Us?10.1093/heapol/czh017 ↗
2. Help-Seeking Behaviour: A Concept Analysis: Help-Seeking Behaviour: A Concept Analysis10.1111/j.1440-172X.2011.01936.x ↗
3. Liyew, B., Tarekegn, G.E., Kassew, T., Tsegaye, N., Asfaw, M.G., Tilahun, A.D., Tadesse, A.Z., and Alamneh, T.S. (2022). Individual and Community-Level Factors of Treatment-Seeking Behaviour among Caregivers with Febrile Children in Ethiopia: A Multilevel Analysis. PLoS ONE, 17.10.1371/journal.pone.0264707 ↗
4. Spine Surgeon Treatment Variability: The Impact on Costs10.1177/2192568217739610 ↗
5. Measurement Variability in Treatment Response Determination for Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: Improvements Using Radiomics10.1097/RTI.0000000000000390 ↗
6. Treatment and Monitoring Variability in US Metastatic Breast Cancer Care
7. (2016). Food and Drug Administration Patient Preference Information—Voluntary Submission, Review in Premarket Approval Applications, Humanitarian Device Exemption Applications, and De Novo Equests, and Inclusion in Decision Summaries and Device Labeling, Food and Drug Administration.
8. Taking patient heterogeneity and preferences into account in health technology assessments10.1017/S0266462317000885 ↗
9. Public and patient involvement in health technology assessment: A framework for action10.1017/S0266462316000362 ↗
10. Increasing Patient Involvement in Drug Development10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.009 ↗
11. Preference for Pharmaceutical Formulation and Treatment Process Attributes10.2147/PPA.S101821 ↗
12. Endpoints in Clinical Trials: What Do Patients Consider Important? A Survey of the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.11.030 ↗
13. Effects of 5,6-Dihydroxytryptamine on Tyrosine-Hydroxylase Activity in Central Catecholaminergic Neurons of the Rat10.1016/0006-2952(75)90018-0 ↗
14. How Do Physician Assessments of Patient Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests Differ from Actual Preferences? A Comparison in Canada and the United States Using a Stated-Choice Survey: Colorectal cancer screening stated-choice survey10.1002/hec.1437 ↗
15. The Next Step in Guideline Development: Incorporating Patient Preferences10.1001/jama.300.4.436 ↗
16. Design, Conduct, and Use of Patient Preference Studies in the Medical Product Life Cycle: A Multi-Method Study10.3389/fphar.2019.01395 ↗
17. Patient-Focused Benefit-Risk Analysis to Inform Regulatory Decisions: The European Union Perspective10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.006 ↗
18. Methods for Exploring and Eliciting Patient Preferences in the Medical Product Lifecycle: A Literature Review10.1016/j.drudis.2019.05.001 ↗
19. Partnering With Patients in the Development and Lifecycle of Medicines: A Call for Action10.1177/2168479015580384 ↗
20. On the Path to a Science of Patient Input10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf6730 ↗
21. Patient Engagement at a Tipping Point—The Need for Cultural Change Across Patient, Sponsor, and Regulator Stakeholders: Insights From the DIA Conference, “Patient Engagement in Benefit Risk Assessment Throughout the Life Cycle of Medical Products”10.1177/2168479016662902 ↗
22. Giving Patients’ Preferences a Voice in Medical Treatment Life Cycle: The PREFER Public–Private Project10.1007/s40271-017-0222-3 ↗
23. Patient Empowerment: Reflections on the Challenge of Fostering the Adoption of a New Paradigm10.1016/j.pec.2004.05.008 ↗
24. Factors and Situations Influencing the Value of Patient Preference Studies along the Medical Product Lifecycle: A Literature Review10.1016/j.drudis.2018.09.015 ↗
25. Incorporating Patient Preferences into Drug Development and Regulatory Decision Making: Results from a Quantitative Pilot Study with Cancer Patients, Carers, and Regulators10.1002/cpt.332 ↗
26. Puhan, M.A., Yu, T., Boyd, C.M., and ter Riet, G. (2015). Quantitative Benefit–Harm Assessment for Setting Research Priorities: The Example of Roflumilast for Patients with COPD. BMC Med., 13.10.1186/s12916-015-0398-0 ↗
27. Amplifying Each Patient’s Voice: A Systematic Review of Multi-Criteria Decision Analyses Involving Patients10.1007/s40258-016-0299-1 ↗
28. Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes to Measure Symptoms and Health Related Quality of Life in the Clinic10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.11.071 ↗
29. What Is the Value of the Routine Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Toward Improvement of Patient Outcomes, Processes of Care, and Health Service Outcomes in Cancer Care? A Systematic Review of Controlled Trials10.1200/JCO.2013.53.5948 ↗
30. Two-Year Survival Comparing Web-Based Symptom Monitoring vs Routine Surveillance Following Treatment for Lung Cancer10.1001/jama.2018.18085 ↗
31. Symptom Monitoring With Patient-Reported Outcomes During Routine Cancer Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial10.1200/JCO.2015.63.0830 ↗
32. Overall Survival Results of a Trial Assessing Patient-Reported Outcomes for Symptom Monitoring During Routine Cancer Treatment10.1001/jama.2017.7156 ↗
33. Patient Preferences in Regulatory Benefit-Risk Assessments: A US Perspective10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.008 ↗
34. Use of Patient Preference Information in Benefit–Risk Assessment, Health Technology Assessment, and Pricing and Reimbursement Decisions: A Systematic Literature Review of Attempts and Initiatives10.3389/fmed.2020.543046 ↗
35. An Overview of Critical Decision-Points in the Medical Product Lifecycle: Where to Include Patient Preference Information in the Decision-Making Process?10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.07.007 ↗
36. Patient Representatives’ Contributions to the Benefit-Risk Assessment Tasks of the European Medicines Agency Scientific Committees: Patient Representatives and Risk Benefit10.1111/bcp.12456 ↗
37. Fernow, J. (2021, July 24). Prefer. Available online: https://www.imi-prefer.eu/.
38. (2021, July 25). Health Preference Research—International Health Economics Association. Available online: https://www.healtheconomics.org/page/HealthPreference#.
39. Community-Augmented Meta-Analyses: Toward Cumulative Data Assessment10.1177/1745691614552498 ↗
40. Community-Augmented Meta-Analyses (CAMAs) in Psychology: Potentials and Current Systems10.1027/2151-2604/a000431 ↗
41. Evaluating Risk Tolerance from a Systematic Review of Preferences: The Case of Patients with Psoriasis10.1007/s40271-017-0295-z ↗
42. Public and Patient Involvement in Quantitative Health Research: A Statistical Perspective10.1111/hex.12800 ↗
43. Shackelford, G.E., Martin, P.A., Hood, A.S.C., Christie, A.P., Kulinskaya, E., and Sutherland, W.J. (2021). Dynamic Meta-Analysis: A Method of Using Global Evidence for Local Decision Making. BMC Biol., 19.10.1186/s12915-021-00974-w ↗
44. The Case for an Open Science in Technology Enhanced Learning
45. Yu, T., Enkh-Amgalan, N., and Zorigt, G. (2017). Methods to Perform Systematic Reviews of Patient Preferences: A Literature Survey. BMC Med. Res. Methodol., 17.10.1186/s12874-017-0448-8 ↗