Effective Partnering in Conducting Benefit-Risk Patient Preference Studies: Perspectives From a Patient Advocacy Organization, a Pharmaceutical Company, and Academic Stated-Preference Researchers. (July 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wolka, Anne M.; Fairchild, Angelyn O.; Reed, Shelby D.; Anglin, Greg; Johnson, F. Reed; Siegel, Michael; Noel, Rebecca
• Is Part Of: Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science. Volume 52:Number 4(2018:Jul.)
• Page Start: 507
• Page End: 513
• Publication Date: 2018-07
• Subjects: benefit-risk -- stated preferences -- patient advocacy -- industry -- academia; Drugs -- Periodicals; Pharmacology -- Periodicals; Drugs -- Research -- Periodicals; Drugs -- Testing -- Periodicals; 615.1
• DOI: 10.1177/2168479017746404
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2168-4790

Abstract

Background: Formal incorporation of patients' perspectives is becoming increasingly important in medical product development and decision making. This article shares practical advice regarding how patient advocacy organizations, the pharmaceutical industry, and academic experts in stated-preference research can effectively partner on benefit-risk patient preference studies. Methods: The authors partnered on a benefit-risk patient preference study related to the treatment of psoriasis. The authors from Duke Clinical Research Institute also share their experiences in collaborating with numerous other organizations in conducting benefit-risk patient preference studies. Results: Upon initiation of the study partnership with appropriate experts, training is important to ensure all collaborators have a common understanding of the methodology, what objectives stated-preference methods can support, and expectations for the project. To the extent possible, partners should align on and document relevant clinical and logistical details prior to study implementation. During study implementation, partners should use good communication practices and document and maintain a record of any changes to the original plan. Presentation of the study results should be tailored to the particular audience, with the appropriate partner leading the presentation based on its format and audience. Conclusion: Partners from patient advocacy organizations, the pharmaceutical industry, and academia can effectively collaborate on benefit-risk patient preference studies with sufficient planning and ongoing communication. This article is a call for action for other organizations to engage in sharing of experiences regarding effective partnering in quantifying patient preferences in medical product development.