The value of co-creating a clinical outcome assessment strategy for clinical trial research: process and lessons learnt
Abstract Background In support of UCB pharmaceutical research programs, the aim of this research was to implement a novel process for patient involvement in a multidisciplinary research group to co-create a clinical outcome assessment strategy to accurately reflect the experience of people living wi...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2023-10-01
|
| Series: | Research Involvement and Engagement |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00505-7 |
| _version_ | 1797355462615629824 |
|---|---|
| author | Thomas Morel Karlin Schroeder Sophie Cleanthous John Andrejack Geraldine Blavat William Brooks Lesley Gosden Carroll Siu Natasha Ratcliffe Ashley F. Slagle |
| author_facet | Thomas Morel Karlin Schroeder Sophie Cleanthous John Andrejack Geraldine Blavat William Brooks Lesley Gosden Carroll Siu Natasha Ratcliffe Ashley F. Slagle |
| author_sort | Thomas Morel |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background In support of UCB pharmaceutical research programs, the aim of this research was to implement a novel process for patient involvement in a multidisciplinary research group to co-create a clinical outcome assessment strategy to accurately reflect the experience of people living with early-stage Parkinson’s. Patient experts were an integral part of the decision-making process for patient-reported outcome (PRO) research and instrument development. Methods In partnership with two patient organizations (Parkinson’s UK and the Parkinson’s Foundation), 6 patient experts were recruited into a multidisciplinary research group alongside clinical, patient engagement and involvement, regulatory science, and outcome measurement experts. The group was involved across two phases of research; the first phase identified what symptoms are cardinal to the experience of living with early-stage Parkinson’s and the second phase involved the development of PRO instruments to better assess the symptoms that are important to people living with early-stage Parkinson’s. Patient experts were important in performing a variety of roles, in particular, qualitative study protocol design, conceptual model development, and subsequent co-creation of two PRO instruments. Results Involving people with Parkinson’s in PRO research ensured that the expertise of these representatives from the Parkinson’s community shaped and drove the research; as such, PRO instruments were being developed with the patient at the forefront. Working with patient experts required considerable resource and time allocation for planning, communication, document development, and organizing meetings; however, their input enriched the development of PRO instruments and was vital in developing PRO instruments that are more meaningful for people with Parkinson’s and clinicians. Conclusions Conducting PRO research, in the context of clinical development involving pharmaceutical companies, requires balancing regulatory and scientific rigor with tight time constraints. Incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective, which included patient experts as joint investigators, had a strong positive impact on our research, despite the logistical complexities of their involvement. Due to the input of patient experts, the innovative clinical outcome assessment strategy and the co-created novel PRO instruments were more relevant and holistic to the patient experience of early-stage Parkinson’s. Graphical abstract |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-08T14:11:31Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-bbc7b22a7386418a96f27791fe69c63a |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2056-7529 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-08T14:11:31Z |
| publishDate | 2023-10-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Research Involvement and Engagement |
| spelling | doaj.art-bbc7b22a7386418a96f27791fe69c63a2024-01-14T12:42:17ZengBMCResearch Involvement and Engagement2056-75292023-10-019111410.1186/s40900-023-00505-7The value of co-creating a clinical outcome assessment strategy for clinical trial research: process and lessons learntThomas Morel0Karlin Schroeder1Sophie Cleanthous2John Andrejack3Geraldine Blavat4William Brooks5Lesley Gosden6Carroll Siu7Natasha Ratcliffe8Ashley F. Slagle9Patient-Centred Outcomes Research, UCB PharmaParkinson’s FoundationModus Outcomes, a Division of ThreadParkinson’s FoundationParkinson’s FoundationParkinson’s FoundationParkinson’s UKParkinson’s UKParkinson’s UKAspen Consulting, LLCAbstract Background In support of UCB pharmaceutical research programs, the aim of this research was to implement a novel process for patient involvement in a multidisciplinary research group to co-create a clinical outcome assessment strategy to accurately reflect the experience of people living with early-stage Parkinson’s. Patient experts were an integral part of the decision-making process for patient-reported outcome (PRO) research and instrument development. Methods In partnership with two patient organizations (Parkinson’s UK and the Parkinson’s Foundation), 6 patient experts were recruited into a multidisciplinary research group alongside clinical, patient engagement and involvement, regulatory science, and outcome measurement experts. The group was involved across two phases of research; the first phase identified what symptoms are cardinal to the experience of living with early-stage Parkinson’s and the second phase involved the development of PRO instruments to better assess the symptoms that are important to people living with early-stage Parkinson’s. Patient experts were important in performing a variety of roles, in particular, qualitative study protocol design, conceptual model development, and subsequent co-creation of two PRO instruments. Results Involving people with Parkinson’s in PRO research ensured that the expertise of these representatives from the Parkinson’s community shaped and drove the research; as such, PRO instruments were being developed with the patient at the forefront. Working with patient experts required considerable resource and time allocation for planning, communication, document development, and organizing meetings; however, their input enriched the development of PRO instruments and was vital in developing PRO instruments that are more meaningful for people with Parkinson’s and clinicians. Conclusions Conducting PRO research, in the context of clinical development involving pharmaceutical companies, requires balancing regulatory and scientific rigor with tight time constraints. Incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective, which included patient experts as joint investigators, had a strong positive impact on our research, despite the logistical complexities of their involvement. Due to the input of patient experts, the innovative clinical outcome assessment strategy and the co-created novel PRO instruments were more relevant and holistic to the patient experience of early-stage Parkinson’s. Graphical abstracthttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00505-7Early-stage Parkinson’sParkinson’s diseasePatient-reported outcomesPatient expertPatient engagementCo-creation |
| spellingShingle | Thomas Morel Karlin Schroeder Sophie Cleanthous John Andrejack Geraldine Blavat William Brooks Lesley Gosden Carroll Siu Natasha Ratcliffe Ashley F. Slagle The value of co-creating a clinical outcome assessment strategy for clinical trial research: process and lessons learnt Research Involvement and Engagement Early-stage Parkinson’s Parkinson’s disease Patient-reported outcomes Patient expert Patient engagement Co-creation |
| title | The value of co-creating a clinical outcome assessment strategy for clinical trial research: process and lessons learnt |
| title_full | The value of co-creating a clinical outcome assessment strategy for clinical trial research: process and lessons learnt |
| title_fullStr | The value of co-creating a clinical outcome assessment strategy for clinical trial research: process and lessons learnt |
| title_full_unstemmed | The value of co-creating a clinical outcome assessment strategy for clinical trial research: process and lessons learnt |
| title_short | The value of co-creating a clinical outcome assessment strategy for clinical trial research: process and lessons learnt |
| title_sort | value of co creating a clinical outcome assessment strategy for clinical trial research process and lessons learnt |
| topic | Early-stage Parkinson’s Parkinson’s disease Patient-reported outcomes Patient expert Patient engagement Co-creation |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00505-7 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT thomasmorel thevalueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT karlinschroeder thevalueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT sophiecleanthous thevalueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT johnandrejack thevalueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT geraldineblavat thevalueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT williambrooks thevalueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT lesleygosden thevalueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT carrollsiu thevalueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT natasharatcliffe thevalueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT ashleyfslagle thevalueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT thomasmorel valueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT karlinschroeder valueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT sophiecleanthous valueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT johnandrejack valueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT geraldineblavat valueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT williambrooks valueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT lesleygosden valueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT carrollsiu valueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT natasharatcliffe valueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt AT ashleyfslagle valueofcocreatingaclinicaloutcomeassessmentstrategyforclinicaltrialresearchprocessandlessonslearnt |