f3 patient engagement-2015philadelphia
TRANSCRIPT
FORUM
PATIENT ENGAGEMENT IN HEALTH ECONOMIC AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH:
CURRENT AND FUTURE ISPOR INITIATIVES
Moderator FORUM
Todd Berner, MD Co-Chair Patient Engagement In Research Working Group ISPOR PATIENT CENTERED SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP
Speakers
FORUM
Rob Camp, Communications Manager, EUPATI, Barcelona, Spain
Amie Scott, MPH, Business Health Research Analyst, SEAS Capital Partners, LLC, Plymouth, MI, USA
Don Husereau, MSc, Senior Associate, Institute of Health Economics Adjunct Professor, Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
Emil Chiauzzi, PhD, Research Director, PatientsLikeMe, Cambridge, MA, USA
FORUM
ISPOR Involvement with Patients PATIENT CENTERED SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP Patient Engagement In Research Working Group
PATIENT REPRESENTATIVE ROUNDTABLE European North American
FORUM
PATIENT ENGAGEMENT IN RESEARCH WORKING GROUP
Goal: To determine how best to involve patients and their representatives in the research process by identifying: The stages at which patients should be involved The level of their involvement in each stage The challenges that will face the researchers Recommendations
FORUM
Goal: provide an opportunity for patient representatives to learn and discuss how they can participate in the assessment of a new health technology (drug, medical device, diagnostics, biopharmaceutical, vaccines)
increase their involvement in health policy decision making.
Patient involvement in health technologies research Are they involved enough?
ISPOR 20th International Meeting Philadelphia PA 18 May 2015
The project is receiving support from the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking under grant agreement n° 115334, resources of which are composed of financial contribution from the European Union's Seventh Framework
Programme (FP7/2007-2013) and EFPIA companies.
Patient involvement is patient engagement is not recruitment! (recruitment is recruitment) It is a process of utilizing the expertise we have to improve the research process and shape it together
What do I mean by patient involvement?
Why patient involvement/engagement?
We make the research better
A wide range of stakeholders can give research teams advice about research questions, procedures and conduct Stakeholders, especially community stakeholders (patients), have critical knowledge about local cultures and dynamics of the disease that trial sponsors/designers may lack. Their feedback can help ensure that the research and procedures are culturally sensitive and appropriate This advice can lead to better (and faster) recruitment, better retention, better adherence, better data, and better likelihood of uptake of interventions should they be safe and effective (ie, better research) It is their right
Are there Guidelines?
Standard practices for stakeholder engagement. They provide trial funders, sponsors, and implementers with systematic guidance on how to effectively engage with stakeholders in the design and conduct of clinical trials. YES, they exist and you can adapt any of them!
Community Stakeholders are: Patients and individuals and groups who are ultimately representing the interests of people who would participate in a trial. patient advocates, representatives ex-patients (cured, etc. with experience!) family, caregivers
Who is a Community Stakeholder?
Examples of Research Stakeholders
• Respect • Mutual Understanding • Integrity • Transparency • Accountability • Community Stakeholder Autonomy
Guiding principles
Where can it be applied?
Formative Research Activities Stakeholder Advisory Mechanisms Stakeholder Engagement Plan Stakeholder Education Plan Communications Plan Issues Management Plan Site Selection Protocol Development Informed Consent Process Current standards Access Co-morbidities and Care Trial-related harm Accrual, follow-up and exit Trial closure and dissemination Post-trial access
Stakeholder Advisory Mechanisms
Community Advisory Boards (CABs) are one of many ways (formal or informal) that research teams can engage with stakeholders
Ex. about Protocol Development
• involvement in defining the priorities in research activities
• involvement in better protocol design, e.g. defining trial endpoints
• involvement in benefit-risk assessment, • involvement in data monitoring committees
• A reminder of multidisciplinarity
Concrete involvement
Implementation, monitoring, and evaluation
• Impact – Did the engagement improve the research? How?
– Did stakeholders provide useful feedback on the design of the study and the protocol?
– How do various stakeholders feel about the quality of the engagement process and the relationships?
– Did community stakeholders feel their inputs and feedback were listened to and addressed?
– All stakeholders can be involved in the evaluation process and give their perspectives
Application/implementation
• It is a learning process! • It will be different in every setting. There
isn’t one answer. And there won’t be one answer.
• It will depend on country, institution, sponsor, etc.
EUPATI Training and Information • By 2017, there will be a searchable education website with
teachable and downloadable information in 7 languages – providing user-friendly information and education resources on the
research development process that will further community understanding of these issues
– create the leading public library of patient-friendly information on research development and research in the seven most common languages in Europe
– establish a sustainable website and information service to provide up-to-date information
– to show you how to get involved in research and development, to support ongoing and future research and clinical trials
– Supported by 4 patient umbrella org’s, 3 universities, 7 int’l NGOs and some 30 pharmaceutical companies; non- disease-specific, non-treatment specific
Our future
There are very competent and willing science-oriented partners in the patient community • EUPATI is working on increasing the number of
well-educated advocates • Education, education, education • Implementation, implementation,
implementation
Thank you
• To all of you
• www.patientsacademy.eu
PATIENT ENGAGEMENT IN HEALTH ECONOMIC AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH: CURRENT AND FUTURE ISPOR INITIATIVES Emil Chiauzzi, Ph.D. Research Director PatientsLikeMe May 18, 2015
A patient network that improves lives & a real-time research platform that advances medicine
About PLM
patients data insights
• 25+ million structured data points
• 3+ million free-text posts • 10+ PROs • Increasing third-party data
integration
• 300,000+ patients • 2,000+ conditions • Ongoing
engagement • Deep trust
• 60+ peer-reviewed papers • Patient-generated
taxonomy • Safety monitoring platform • Endpoints in clinical trials • Dozens of biotech/pharma
relationships
What Members Do
• Document changes to symptoms and new treatments, triggers and side effects
• Generate a real-world outcomes research data
Learn about living with and treating life-changing
conditions
• Answer the question “Is this normal?”
• Learn from aggregated patient treatment and symptom data
Connect with others sharing those
experiences
• Search patients based on age, gender, disease, treatment, symptoms, interests, etc.
• Day-to-day support
• Live better, together
Track their history and progress
over time
Structured Data Overview
Patient Experience & QoL
PatientsLikeMe Data Fields Patient Reporters Stakeholders Data Utilization
Care Management
Access & Reimbursement
Research Registries
CER, PCOR, HEOR
• Industry • Regulators • Payers/Plans • Researchers • Providers • Patients
Conditions
Age
Gender
Race
Ethnicity
Location
Payer type
Active Safety Surveillance
Diagnostic Journey
Symptoms
Primary / Secondary
Hospitalizations
Comorbidities
Treatments
Effectiveness
Dates of Therapy Indication for Use
Adherence History
Side Effects
Stop Reasons
Advice / Tips
Related Data Labs, Tests, BMI
Free Text Narrative
Engagement Over Time
Member Communications
• 89% of logins are triggered by an engagement message
• These communications include monthly newsletters, blog posts, social media, etc.
• Dedicated team of Community moderators
Tracking and Social
• Patients can signup for reminders to update their profile
• Patients can view other member profiles and connect
• “Data for Good” campaign
Research Opportunities
• Patients can participate in longitudinal health studies with PLM partners
• PLM supplements traditional study recruitment by sending targeted outreach to potential subjects
Givebacks
• Funded by RWJF • World’s first open-participation
research platform for creating patient-reported health outcome measurements
• A hub where researchers, clinicians and patients can work together to increase the understanding of disease – faster than ever before
• Year 1 (2013): researcher-led measure development
• Year 2 (2014): patient-led measure development
www.openresearchexchange.com
Open Research Exchange
Wearables
“Out of box” experience
Tailored communications
Informed consent
IRB review
Research protocol design
Device procurement
Data architecture design
Product enhancements
Study participant selection
Study execution
Insight generation
Trial Access: Leveraging the PLM Platform
Attitudes towards clinical trial aspects (randomization, open access)
Opinions on pt involvement in CT
Triggers for interest in clinical trials
Exposure to media and offline marketing channels
Past experiences in clinical trials
Ability to participate in future trials
Concerns / factors in deciding to participate
Key domains relevant to trial design
X
Age Sex Geography Primary condition Quality of life Disease
progression
=
Ability to quickly identify trial issues before beginning trial
Design a more specific / targeted survey around a specific clinical program
Understand patient perspectives on clinical trials across conditions
Trial design effects
Stratification
PatientsLikeMe Publications
Contact Information Dr. Emil Chiauzzi, PhD PatientsLikeMe Research Director [email protected] 617-674-1846
As a newly formed SIG, to guide our direction and provide materials that are in line with the needs of the ISPOR community, we conducted an informal survey.
The objective of conducting this informal survey was to better understand how aspects of patient
engagement in outcomes research was perceived and implemented among the ISPOR community.
Setting
ISPOR Annual Meeting (Montreal, June 2-4, 2014)
ISPOR-EU Meeting (Amsterdam, November 8-12, 2014)
Structured Interview conducted by SIG members
Interviews guided by an survey tool consisting of
29 questions (closed and open-ended).
Purposive sample
Requested conversation regarding patient engagement with ISPOR members attending outcome sessions
Analysis of informal survey
Patient Engagement along Outcomes Research Continuum2
Preparation: Agenda setting
Execution: Study design, recruitment; Data collection and analysis
Translation: Dissemination, implementation and evaluation
1Carman, 2013; Exhibit 1: A multidimensional Framework for Patient and Family Engagement in Health and Health Care 2Domecq, 2014; Figure 3 Methods and Phases of Engagement
Framework: Preparation, Execution, Translation
Domecq, 2014
n = 142 studies
Primary Work Areas N=39 N=7443
Industry 22 (56.4%) 3385 (45.5%)
Health Research 7 (17.9%) 1871 (25.1%)
HealthCare Communications 0 (0.0%) 334 (4.5%)
Academia 7 (17.9%) 1101 (14.8%)
Managed Care 2 (5.1%) 116 (1.6%)
Government 1 (2.6%) 502 (6.7%)
Clinical Practice 1 (2.6%) 134 (1.8%)
Montreal meeting (n=21, 53.8%)
Amsterdam meeting
(n=18,46.2%)
* Primary work areas reported by ISPOR membership between September 15, 2013 –September 15, 2014
Respondent Characteristics
N=39 Yes No
Are you aware of any patient engagement activities, initiatives in your organization/industry/academia? 32 (84.1%) 4 (10.3%)
Awareness of Patient Engagement at current organization
N=39 Yes No Don’t Know
Brought patients/advocacy groups in to your organization to meet with researchers? 18 (46.2%) 7 (17.9%) ---
Involve patients in discussion with approval or review agencies? 11 (28.2%) 16 (41.0%) 2 (5.1%)
Personal Experience: Patient Engagement in Preparation Phase
N=39 Yes No Don’t Know
Involve patients or patient community in study design? 16 (41.0%) 10 (25.6%) ---
In research methods or clinical trials? 2 (5.1%) 25 (64.1%) ---
In write up of patient information leaflets? 4 (10.3%) 23 (59.0%) ---
In informed consent document creation? 4 (10.3%) 22 (56.4%) 1 (2.6%)
Collecting Data from patients? 29 (74.4%) 3 (7.7%) ---
Qualitative Data Collection ? 24 (61.5%) 8 (20.5%) ---
Quantitative Data Collection? 15 (38.5%) 17 (43.6%) ---
Involve patients in recruitment plans for studies? 3 (7.7%) 24 (61.5%) ---
Personal Experience: Patient Engagement in Execution Phase
N=39 Yes No
Involve patients in discussion of results to facilitate interpretation? 12 (30.8%) 16 (41.0%)
Personal Experience: Patient Engagement in Translation Phase
Challenges: Patient Engagement in Research ‘
It’s a bad idea’ ‘Not helpful if not complete information from patients’
‘Concerns about social media, challenges about regulation, approach may be seen
as commercial’ ‘Access to participants without all kinds of approvals, how to make interactive and a
win-win situation’
‘Costly, so should be need based’ ‘Patient advocacy groups feeling alienated due to budget constraints’
‘Keeping the underserved community engaged’
‘How prepared are patients to engage?’
‘Motivating clinicians to involve patients in clinical routine, patient follow-up, missing data after the intervention/engagement’
Conclusions
No shared notion of consistent structure of methodology for patient engagement in OR among the ISPOR community; No one mentioned any frameworks used.
Currently no standard checklist or structure in methodology that meets the needs of the ISPOR outcomes research community
Although our sample may be skewed, affirmed the need for a toolkit of practical methodology for use in health outcomes research
Update on Patient Representatives Roundtable Europe & CASE REPORT on patient involvement in payer healthcare decisions to access new therapies
FORUM
First European Roundtable - 5 November 2013, ISPOR 16th Annual European Congress in Dublin, Ireland
Second European Roundtable – 1- November 2014 - ISPOR 17th Annual European Congress, in Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Promote opportunities for collaboration
How to improve Ensure representation and understanding of patient perspectives in research? HTA?
How to help researchers understand patients and patients understand researchers and create linkages
1 page template developed by the European Roundtable similar to EUPATI Case Report for clinical research
Gather descriptions of HTA interactions with patients to
Understand good practices/successes
Understand continued challenges/barriers
Sign up as Review Group Member • Business card to Kelly • Sign-up sheet • Website: Interest Groups • Join ISPOR Special Interest Groups Select ISPOR Patient Centered Special Interest Group
FORUM SLIDES are AVAILABLE
Go to the ISPOR PHL MEETING home page and click on the orange Released Presentations menu OR via this link to ISPOR’s Released Presentations webpage:
http://www.ispor.org/Event/ReleasedPresentations/2015Philadelphia