Bringing the patient’s perspectives forward in drug development and health-care evaluation

References

• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labelling claims. 2009 [cited 2023 Jan 9]. Available from https://www.fda.gov/media/77832/download
   Google Scholar
• Meadows K. Interpreting patient-reported outcome measures: narrative and the “Fusion of Horizons.” Philos of Med. 2021;2(2). DOI:10.5195/philmed.2021.66.
   Google Scholar
• McClimans LM. First person epidemiological measures: vehicles for patient centered care. Synthese. 2019;198(Suppl 10):2521–2537.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meadows KA. A philosophical perspective on the development and application of patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs). Qual Life Res. 2022;31(6):1703–1709.
   Google Scholar
• Meadows K (2021). Patient-reported outcome measures – a call for more narrative evidence. J Patient Exp. 8. DOI:10.1177/23743735211049666.
   Google Scholar
• Reaney M, Bush E, New M, et al. The potential role of individual-level benefit-risk assessment in treatment decision making: a DIA study endpoints community workstream. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2019;53(5):630–638.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gater A, Reaney M, Findley A, et al. Development and first use of the Patient’s Qualitative Assessment of Treatment (PQAT) questionnaire in type 2 diabetes mellitus to explore individualised Benefit–Harm of drugs received during clinical studies. Drug Saf. 2020;43(2):119–134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller LE. Study design considerations for irritable bowel syndrome clinical trials. Ann Gastroenterol. 2014;27(4):338–345.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Klimas NG, Broderick G, Fletcher MA. Biomarkers for chronic fatigue. Brain Behav Immun. 2012;26(8):1202–1210.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zannad F, Garcia AA, Anker SD, et al. Clinical outcome endpoints in heart failure trials: a European society of cardiology heart failure association consensus document. European J Heart Fail. 2013;15(10):1082–1094.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reaney M, Turnbull J, Paty J, et al. Development of an item bank to assess patient-reported outcomes: signs, symptoms and Impacts of COVID-19. Patient. 2022;20:1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Allport GW. Personality: a psychological interpretation. New York: Henry Holt & Co; 1937.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey L (2012). 2012–2020. Social research glossary. Quality research international. http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/
   Google Scholar
• Romm NRA. Employing Questionnaires in terms of a constructivist epistemological stance: reconsidering researchers’ involvement in the unfolding of social life. Int J Qual Methods. 2013;12(1):652–669.
   Google Scholar
• Hughes J, Sharrock WW. The philosophy of social research. London: Longman; 1980.
   Google Scholar
• Travers M. Qualitative research through case studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Marsh C. Problems with surveys: method or epistemology? Sociology. 1979;13(2):293–305.
   Google Scholar
• Larrain J. The Concept of Ideology. London: Hutchinson; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Marsh C (1982). Survey method: the contribution of surveys to sociological explanation. Routledge the author discusses the issues resulting from the accusation that surveys are positivist in nature and whether such problems are philosophical or technical.
   Google Scholar
• Huppertz JW, Smith R. The value of patient handwritten comments on HCAHPS Surveys. J Healthc Manag. 2014;59(1):31–47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Speight AJ, Woodcock MD, Reaney SA, et al. The QoL-Q diabetes: a novel instrument to assess quality of life for adults with type 1 diabetes undergoing complex interventions including transplantation. Diabetic Med. 2010;27(1):3–4.
   Google Scholar
• Nagy MS. Using a single-item approach to measure facet job satisfaction. J Occ Org Psych. 2002;75(1):77–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sloan JA, Aaronson N, Cappelleri JC, et al. Assessing the clinical significance of single items relative to summated scores. Mayo Clin Proceed. 2002;77(5):479–487.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holloway I, Freshawater D. Narrative Research in Nursing. 2007. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Guillemin I, Reaney M. PCR52 global rating scales: value beyond anchors? Value in Health. 2022;25(7):S550.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klienmann A. The Illness narratives: suffering, Healing and the Human Condition. New York: Basic Books; 1988.
   Google Scholar
• McClimans L. Towards self-determination in quality of life research: a dialogic approach. Med Health Care and Philos. 2010;13(1):67–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revicki DA, Chen W-H, Tucker C. Developing item banks for patient-reported health outcomes. In: Reise SP, Revicki DA, editors. Handbook of item response theory modelling: applications to typical performance assessment. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group; 2015. p. 334–363.
   Google Scholar
• Reaney M, Stassek L, Martin M, et al. Creating a personalized evaluation framework for patient-reported outcomes: an illustration using the EQ-5D visual analogue scale. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2019;19(1):97–104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunter J, Armour M. Stop, listen, and learn: using mixed methods to add value to clinical trials. J Evid Based Integr Med. 2019Jan-Dec; 24: 2515690X19857073 PMID: 31232083; PMCID: PMC6591665
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cognetta-Rieke C, Guney S. Analytical insights from patient narratives: the next step for better patient experience. J Patient Exp. 2014;1(1):20–22.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Riesman CK. Narrative Analysis. Newbury Park CA: Sage Publication; 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Khan AH, Abbe A, Falissard B, et al. Data mining of free-text responses: an innovative approach to analyzing patient perspectives on treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps in a phase iia proof-of-concept study for dupilumab. Patient Prefer Adherence 19. 2021;15:2577–2586. PMID: 34848949; PMCID: PMC8611726.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mishler EG. Models of narrative analysis: a typology. J Narrative and Life Hist. 1995;5(2):87–123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Figgou L, Pavlopoulos V. Social psychology: research methods. In: Wright JD, editor. International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Oxford: Elsevier; 2015. p. 544–552.
   Google Scholar
• Frechette J, Bitzas V, Aubry M, et al. Capturing lived experience: methodological considerations for interpretive phenomenological inquiry. Int J Qual Methods. 2020;19:1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staunton H, Willgoss T, Nelsen L, et al. An overview of using qualitative techniques to explore and define estimates of clinically important change on clinical outcome assessments. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2019;3(1):16.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Walsh J, Dufour C, Cave J, et al. Spontaneously generated online patient experience data - how and why is it being used in health research: an umbrella scoping review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022;22(1):139.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiBenedetti DB, Brown T, Romano C, et al. Conducting Patient Interviews Within a Clinical Trial Setting [Internet]. 2018; Research Triangle Park (NC): RTI Press. DOI:10.3768/rtipress.2018.op.0054.1808
   Google Scholar
• Reaney M, McHorney CA, Cutis B, et al. Using individual experiences with experimental medications to predict medication-taking behavior postauthorization: a DIA study endpoints workstream. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2017;51(4):404–415.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Natuhwera G, Ellis P, Acuda SW, et al. ‘I got to understand what it means to be a cancer patient’: qualitative evidence from health professional cancer patients and survivors. SAGE Open Med. 2022;18;(10):20503121221095942. PMID: 35600701; PMCID PMC9121446.
   Google Scholar
• Cheraghi-Sohi S, Morden A, Bower P, et al. Exploring patient priorities among long-term conditions in multimorbidity: a qualitative secondary analysis. SAGE Open Medicine; 2013. 1. DOI:10.1177/2050312113503955
   Google Scholar
• McHorney CA. The contribution of qualitative research to medication adherence. Handbook of Qual Health Res for Evidence-Based Pract. 2016. DOI:10.1007/978-1-4939-2920-7_28
   Google Scholar
• Soekhai V, Whichello C, Bennett L. Methods for exploring and eliciting patient preferences in the medical product lifecycle: a literature review. Drug Discov Today. 2019;24(7):1324–1331. 1359-6446.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Overbeeke E, Whichello C, Janssens R. Factors and situations influencing the value of patient preference studies along the medical product lifecycle: a literature review. Drug Discov Today. 2019;24(1):57–68. Epub 2018 Sep 26. PMID: 30266656.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollin IL, Craig BM, Coast J. Reporting formative qualitative research to support the development of quantitative preference study protocols and corresponding survey instruments: guidelines for authors and reviewers. Patient. 2020Feb;13(1):121–136. PMID: 31840215.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gaglio B, Henton M, Barbeau A, et al. Methodological standards for qualitative and mixed methods patient centered outcomes research BMJ. 2020;2(371):m4435.
   Google Scholar
• Wasti SP, Simkhada P, van Teijlingen ER. The growing importance of mixed-methods research in health. Nepal J Epidemiol. 2022;12(1):1175–1178. PMID: 35528457; PMCID: PMC9057171.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar