Dataset Information

Characterising meaningful patient and public involvement in the pharmaceutical industry research setting: a retrospective quality assessment.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical research has a well-established infrastructure in the UK, and while there has been good progress within pharmaceutical-industry-sponsored research, further improvements are still needed. This review aims to share learnings from quality assessments of historical PPI projects within Pfizer UK to inform future projects and drive PPI progress in the pharmaceutical industry.

Design and setting

Internal assessments of Pfizer UK PPI projects were conducted to identify all relevant projects across the medicines development continuum between 2017 and 2021. Five sample projects were developed into case studies.

Outcome measure

Retrospective quality assessments were performed using the Patient Focused Medicines Development (PFMD) Patient Engagement Quality Guidance (PEQG) tool. Recommendations for improvement were developed.

Results

Retrospective case study analysis and quality framework assessment revealed benefits of PPI to both Pfizer UK and to external partners, as well as challenges and learnings to improve future practice. Recommendations for improvement based on these findings focused on processes and procedures for PPI, group dynamics and diversity for PPI activities, sharing of expertise, the importance of bidirectional and timely feedback, and the use of understandable language in materials.

Conclusions

PPI in medicines development is impactful and beneficial but is still being optimised in the pharmaceutical industry. Using the PFMD PEQG tool to define gaps, share learnings and devise recommendations for improvement helps to ensure that PPI is genuine and empowering, rather than tokenistic. Ultimately, these recommendations should be acted on to further embed PPI as an integral part of medicines development and health research within the pharmaceutical industry. This article includes a plain language summary in the supplement.

SUBMITTER: Dews SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10450071 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Characterising meaningful patient and public involvement in the pharmaceutical industry research setting: a retrospective quality assessment.

Dews Sally-Anne SA Bassi Adit A Buckland Sean S Clements Lucy L Daley Rachel R Davies Angela A Evett Sophie S Howland Samantha S Kinloch Emma E Phillips Berkeley B Powell Gareth G Preston Jennifer J Sterniczuk Kamil K Bohm Natalie N

BMJ open 20230823 8

<h4>Objectives</h4>Patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical research has a well-established infrastructure in the UK, and while there has been good progress within pharmaceutical-industry-sponsored research, further improvements are still needed. This review aims to share learnings from quality assessments of historical PPI projects within Pfizer UK to inform future projects and drive PPI progress in the pharmaceutical industry.<h4>Design and setting</h4>Internal assessments of Pfizer UK ...[more]

PMID: 37612107

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThis study aimed to (1) gauge patients understanding and expectations of real-world data and evidence (RWDE) research and (2) use this understanding and patients lived experience to co-create resources and a framework for embedding meaningful patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in RWDE research within the pharmaceutical industry setting.Setting and participantsAn academic organisation, a pharmaceutical company and a PPIE panel of 12 patients or carers partnered to form the project team. The PPIE panel was purposively selected to maximise diversity.DesignParticipatory and co-design methods were used to engender an understanding of the PPIE perspective on RWDE research and the PPIE role within that. Interactive workshops explored understanding and expectations of RWDE research as well as perceived barriers and facilitators of PPIE within each stage of the RWDE research cycle. Workshops were audio and video recorded, with notes captured. Summaries were analysed thematically and shared back with the PPIE panel for validation and further reflection.ResultsWe identified a lack of trust and understanding of real-world data, its collection and use and the need to educate the public and researchers. Four themes were identified for meaningful PPIE in RWDE research; equality, diversity and inclusion; feeling valued; ownership and understanding and evaluating impact. We co-created learning resources (video, infographic) and a novel PPIE framework, incorporating potential PPIE activities, resources and support needs for use by researchers conducting RWDE research.ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first project to explore the practicalities of PPIE in RWDE research from the perspective of patients and carers. Some findings confirm PPIE experience and guidance derived from other areas, with some specific insights into the pharmaceutical industry. These underpin the PPIE framework to enable robust and meaningful PPIE in RWDE research. This article includes a plain language summary in the supplement.

Project description:BackgroundPublic and patient involvement aims to improve research quality, relevance, and appropriateness. Despite an increasing evidence base on the influence of public involvement in health research, the role of involvement in methodology research (i.e. research that aims to enhance the quality and rigour of research) is less clear. Using a qualitative case study, we explored public involvement in a research priority-setting partnership in rapid review methodology (Priority III) to give practical insights to inform public involvement in priority-setting for future methodological research.MethodsParticipant observation, documentary analysis, interviews and focus groups were used to explore the processes of Priority III and identify the views and experiences of the participants of a steering group (n = 26) regarding public involvement in Priority III. We used a case study research design and conducted two focus groups with five public partners; one focus group with four researchers; and seven one-to-one interviews with researchers and public partners. Nine episodes of participant observation of meetings were conducted. All data were analysed using template analysis.ResultsThe findings of this case study present three themes and six subthemes: Theme 1 We all bring unique qualities to the table. Subtheme 1.1-Coming from different perspectives towards shared-decision making; Subtheme 1.2-Public partners bring pragmatism and grounding in reality; Theme 2 We need support and space at the table. Subtheme 2.1-Define and develop support needed for meaningful involvement; Subtheme 2.2-Creating safe space to listen, challenge and learn; Theme 3 We all benefit from working together. Subtheme 3.1-Reciprocity in mutual learning and capacity building; Subtheme 3.2-Relationships as partners in research, with a feeling of togetherness. Communication and trust, as inclusive ways of working, underpinned the partnership approach to involvement.ConclusionsThis case study contributes to knowledge on public involvement in research by explaining the supportive strategies, spaces, attitudes and behaviours that enabled a productive working partnership to develop between a team of researchers and public partners in this research context.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the extent and nature of pharmaceutical industry payments related to fertility and assisted reproduction in Australia.Design and settingThis retrospective observational study employed four databases compiled from publicly available pharmaceutical industry transparency reports on educational event sponsorship (October 2011-April 2018), payments to healthcare professionals (October 2015-April 2018) and patient group support (January 2013-December 2017). Analyses were restricted to fertility-related payments by two major manufacturers of fertility medicines in Australia: Merck Serono and Merck, Sharp and Dohme (MSD).Primary and secondary outcome measuresDescriptive statistics on fertility-related payments and other transfers of value (counts, total and median costs in Australian dollars) for educational events and to healthcare professionals and patient groups.ResultsBetween October 2011 and April 2018, Merck Serono and MSD spent $A4 522 263 on 970 fertility-related events for healthcare professionals, including doctors, nurses and fertility scientists. 56.8% (551/970) events were held by fertility clinics and 29.3% (284/970) by professional medical associations. Between October 2015 and April 2018, Merck Serono spent $A403 800 across 177 payments to 118 fertility healthcare professionals, predominantly for educational event attendance. Recipients included obstetricians and gynaecologists (76.3% of payments, 135/177), nurses (11.3%, 20/177) and embryologists/fertility scientists (9.6%, 17/117). The highest paid healthcare professionals held leadership positions in major fertility clinics. Merck Serono provided $A662 850 to fertility-related patient groups for advocacy and education (January 2013-December 2017).ConclusionsThe pharmaceutical industry sponsored a broad range of fertility clinicians and organisations, including doctors, nurses, embryologists, professional medical organisations, fertility clinics and patient groups. This sponsorship may contribute to the overuse of fertility services.

Project description:ObjectiveThis article aims to describe how Polish physicians cooperate with the pharmaceutical industry and show how this relationship may pose a threat to public health.MethodsIt considers the results of an online survey of 379 physicians. The survey was hosted by surveymonkey.com with links from a Polish physicians' website (Medycyna Praktyczna) between 29 October 2013 and 31 December 2013. The sample was purposive, respondents having to be physicians working in Poland.ResultsThe majority of respondents (96.8%) said that they had talked with pharmaceutical sales representatives (PSRs) in their practice, with 85% saying that they had had regular contact with them. Despite the existing legal ban in Poland, 35% of respondents admitted that they had usually met with PSRs in their office during working hours. As many as 81.8% of surveyed doctors said that they had taken part in an educational meeting organized by the pharmaceutical industry at least once during the 12 months preceding the study. A majority of the respondents (72.3%) said they trusted the information provided by PSRs. Over one third of respondents (36.4%) claimed that Polish doctors accepted gifts of a type that they should not accept according to Polish law.ConclusionsThe study showed that Polish physicians cooperate in different ways with pharmaceutical companies and have frequent contact with them. This can influence their knowledge and doctors whose knowledge of drugs is based mainly on information from pharmaceutical industry materials may prescribe medicines in a biased way, possibly exposing their patients to sub-optimal treatments and burdening both their patients and the state budget with unnecessary costs. Lack of trust in doctors and pharmaceutical companies have other implications too: there may be a decline of faith in the efficacy of therapy and patients may be encouraged to engage in self-diagnosis and self-treatment. For these reasons it is necessary to increase transparency and strengthen the ethical guidelines surrounding the physician-pharmaceutical industry relationship in Poland. The present findings also have implications for public health policy.

Project description:Although corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities are common in the pharmaceutical industry, there is little empirical evidence on consumer responses to CSR practices. We investigated public awareness, preferences, and expectations regarding social contribution of the pharmaceutical industry's CSR activities, and identified the factors associated with such activities. We conducted an online survey with 1,298 respondents comprising two groups: healthy individuals (546) and patients (752). Most respondents (78%) expressed interest in CSR activities undertaken by pharmaceutical companies. However, they reported a lack of awareness and experience thereof; only 26.9% were aware of and 7.9% had experience with such activities. Among our six CSR activity categories, both survey groups showed the highest preference for the "promoting public health" (healthy group: 6.34/10; patient group: 6.37/10) and "emergency disaster relief support" (6.31 and 6.35) categories. Among sub-categories, activities related to "development of innovative drugs in untreated areas" (6.63 and 6.82) and "support for research on new drug development" (6.59 and 6.84) received the highest scores. The mean expectation score of social contribution of all CSR activities was slightly higher than the mean preference score (6.37 and 6.06, respectively). The patient group exhibited a larger difference between the highest and lowest expectation scores than the healthy group (1.11 and 0.64, respectively). The results of the regression analysis revealed that being a patient, being male, and having positive attitudes toward CSR and its expected effects significantly and positively affected public preferences regarding CSR activities. We can conclude that CSR activities with high public preference might be an effective strategy to improve public awareness of the pharmaceutical industry's CSR activities. Furthermore, the highest preference for CSR activities relates to new drug development, indicating that our society believes the pharmaceutical industry's key CSR activity should be to pursue its intrinsic mission: to fulfill unmet medical needs by developing new drugs.

Dataset Information

Characterising meaningful patient and public involvement in the pharmaceutical industry research setting: a retrospective quality assessment.

Objectives

Design and setting

Outcome measure

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Characterising meaningful patient and public involvement in the pharmaceutical industry research setting: a retrospective quality assessment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets