Involving Patient Groups in Drug Research: A Systematic Review of Reasons

References

• Dent M, Pahor M. Patient involvement in Europe–a comparative framework. J Health Organ Manag. 2015;29(5):546–555. doi:10.1108/JHOM-05-2015-0078
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The King’s Fund. Working with Patients, Service Users, Carers and the Public [Homepage on the Internet]. London: The King’s Fund; 2019. Available from: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/patients-service-users-carers-public.Accessed May 12, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• About Involve [Homepage on the Internet]. London: The Involve Foundation; 2018. Available from: http://www.involve.org.uk/about-involve/. Accessed May 12, 2019..
   Google Scholar
• Mullin T, Vaidya P, Chalasani M. Recent US food and drug administration efforts to integrate the patient’s perspective in drug development and decision making. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2019;105(4):789–791. doi:10.1002/cpt.2019.105.issue-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):89. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-89
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lander J, Hainz T, Hirschberg I, Strech D. Current practice of public involvement activities in biomedical research and innovation: a systematic qualitative review. PLoS One. 2014;9(12):e113274. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0113274
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buyx A, Del Savio L, Prainsack B, Volzke H. Every participant is a PI. Citizen science and participatory governance in population studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2017;46(2):377–384. doi:10.1093/ije/dyw204
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• About Open Humans [Homepage on the Internet]. Boston: Open Humans Foundation. Available from: https://www.openhumans.org/about/. Accessed May 12, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• McCoy MS, Warsh J, Rand L, Parker M, Sheehan M. Patient and public involvement: two sides of the same coin or different coins altogether? Bioethics. 2019;33:708–715. doi:10.1111/bioe.2019.33.issue-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ives J, Damery S, Redwod S. PPI, paradoxes and Plato: who’s sailing the ship? J Med Ethics. 2013;39(3):181–185. doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100150
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caron-Flinterman JF, Broerse JEW, Bunders JFG. The experiential knowledge of patients: a new resource for biomedical research? Soc Sci Med. 2005;60(11):2575–2584. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.11.023
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fredriksson M, Tritter JQ. Disentangling patient and public involvement in healthcare decisions: why the difference matters. Sociol Health Illn. 2017;39(1):95–111. doi:10.1111/1467-9566.12483
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer G, Abou-El-Enein M, Kent A, Poole B, Forte M. The path to successful commercialization of cell and gene therapies: empowering patient advocates. Cytotherapy. 2017;19(2):293–298. doi:10.1016/j.jcyt.2016.10.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staley K, Minogue V. User involvement leads to more ethically sound research. Clin Ethics. 2006;1(2):95–100. doi:10.1258/147775006777254489
   Google Scholar
• Schicktanz S. The ethical legitimacy of patient organizations’ involvement in politics and knowledge production. In: Wehling P, Viehöver W, Koenen S, editors. The Public Shaping of Medical Research: Patient Associations, Health Movements and Biomedicine. Abingdon: Routledge; 2014:246–264.
   Google Scholar
• Cassidy J. Why patient representation might harm science? Breast Cancer Res. 2007;9(Suppl 2):S4. doi:10.1186/bcr1802
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madden M, Speed E. Beware zombies and unicorns: toward critical patient and public involvement in health research in a neoliberal context. Front Sociol. 2017;2:7. doi:10.3389/fsoc.2017.00007
   Google Scholar
• Stockdale A. Waiting for the cure: mapping the social relations of human gene therapy research. Sociol Health Illn. 1999;21(5):579–596. doi:10.1111/1467-9566.00174
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panofsky A. Generating sociability to drive science: patient advocacy organizations and genetics research. Soc Stud Sci. 2011;41(1):31–57. doi:10.1177/0306312710385852
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mello MM, Brennan TA. The controversy over high-dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow transplant for breast cancer. Health Aff (Millwood). 2001;20(5):101–117. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.20.5.101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tritter J, McCallum A. The snakes and ladders of user involvement: moving beyond arnstein. Health Policy. 2006;76:156–168. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.05.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wicks P, Lowe M, Gabriel S, Sikirica S, Sasane R, Arcona S. Increasing patient participation in drug development. Nat Biotechnol. 2015;33(2):134–135. doi:10.1038/nbt.3145
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warner K, See W, Haerry D, Klingmann I, Hunter A, May M. EUPATI guidance for patient involvement in medicines research and development (R&D); guidance for pharmaceutical industry-led medicines R&D. Front Med. 2018;5:270. doi:10.3389/fmed.2018.00270
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans D, Bird E, Gibson A, et al. Extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement in antimicrobial drug development research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2018;21(1):75–81. doi:10.1111/hex.2018.21.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strech D, Sofaer N. How to write a systematic review of reasons. J Med Ethics. 2012;38(2):121–126. doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100096
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strech D, Synofzik M, Marckmann G. Systematic reviews of empirical bioethics. J Med Ethics. 2008;34(6):472–477. doi:10.1136/jme.2007.021709
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mertz M. How to tackle the conundrum of quality appraisal in systematic reviews of normative literature/information? Analysing the problems of three possible strategies (translation of a German paper). BMC Med Ethics. 2019;20(1):81. doi:10.1186/s12910-019-0423-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sofaer N, Strech D. The need for systematic reviews of reasons. Bioethics. 2012;26(6):315–328. doi:10.1111/bioe.2012.26.issue-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mertz M, Sofaer N, Strech D. Did we describe what you meant? Findings and methodological discussion of an empirical validation study for a systematic review of reasons. BMC Med Ethics. 2014;15:69. doi:10.1186/1472-6939-15-69
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mertz M, Kahrass H, Strech D. Current state of ethics literature synthesis: a systematic review of reviews. BMC Med. 2016;14(1):152. doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0688-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sofaer N, Strech D. Reasons why post-trial access to trial drugs should, or need not be ensured to research participants: a systematic review. Public Health Ethics. 2011;4(2):160–184. doi:10.1093/phe/phr013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahieu L, Gastmans C. Sexuality in institutionalized elderly persons: a systematic review of argument-based ethics literature. Int Psychogeriatr. 2012;24(3):346–357. doi:10.1017/S1041610211001542
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Dierickx K. To tell or not to tell? A systematic review of ethical reflections on incidental findings arising in genetics contexts. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;21(3):248–255. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2012.130
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein S. Patient Groups and Health Movements. In: Hackett EJ, Amsterdamska O, Lynch M, Wajcman J, editors. The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. 3rd ed. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 2008:499–539.
   Google Scholar
• Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry Final Report. European Comission. 2008. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/pharmaceuticals/inquiry/staff_working_paper_part1.pdf. Accessed May 12, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Wehling P, Viehöver W, Koenen S. The Public Shaping of Medical Research: Patient Associations, Health Movements and Biomedicine. Abingdon: Routledge; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Govier T. A Practical Study of Argument. 7th ed. Wadsworth; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Mayring P. Qualitative Content Analysis [28 paragraphs]. Forum Qual Soc Res. 2000;1(2):20.
   Google Scholar
• Tranfaglia MR. The rise of rare disease foundations: how patient associations can drive the drug discovery process. In: Chackalamannil S, Rotella D, Ward S, editors. Comprehensive Medicinal Chemistry III, Volume . Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2017:549–559. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-409547-2.12307-8t>
   Google Scholar
• Koay PP, Sharp RR. The role of patient advocacy organizations in shaping genomic science. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2013;14:579–595. doi:10.1146/annurev-genom-091212-153525
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schicktanz S, Schweda M, Franzen M. ‘In a completely different light’? The role of ‘being affected’ for the epistemic perspectives and moral attitudes of patients, relatives and lay people. Med Health Care Philos. 2008;11(1):57–72. doi:10.1007/s11019-007-9074-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerhards H, Jongsma K, Schicktanz S. The relevance of different trust models for representation in patient organizations: conceptual considerations. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):474. doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2368-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beier K, Jordan I, Wiesemann C, Schicktanz S. Understanding collective agency in bioethics. Med Health Care Philos. 2016;19(3):411–422. doi:10.1007/s11019-016-9695-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose SL, Highland J, Karafa MT, Joffe S. Patient advocacy organizations, industry funding, and conflicts of interest. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(3):344–350. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.8443
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCoy MS, Carniol M, Chockley K, Urwin JW, Emanuel EJ, Schmidt H. Conflicts of interest for patient-advocacy organizations. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(9):880–885. doi:10.1056/NEJMsr1610625
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kent A. Should patient groups accept money from drug companies? Yes. BMJ. 2007;334:934. doi:10.1136/bmj.39185.461968.AD
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mintzes B. Should patient groups accept money from drug companies? No. BMJ. 2007;334:935. doi:10.1136/bmj.39185.394005.AD
   Google Scholar
• Rothman SM, Raveis VH, Friedman A, Rothman DJ. Health advocacy organizations and the pharmaceutical industry: an analysis of disclosure practices. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(4):602–609. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2010.300027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colombo C, Mosconi P, Villani W, Garattini S. Patient organizations’ funding from pharmaceutical companies: is disclosure clear, complete and accessible to the public? An italian survey. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e34974. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0034974
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar