Advertisement

Multi-Method Patient-Engagement Approach: A Case Example from a PCORI-Funded Training Project

  • Elisabeth M. Oehrlein
  • T. Rose LoveEmail author
  • Chinenye Anyanwu
  • Maya L. Hanna
  • Jacqueline Kraska
  • Eleanor M. Perfetto
Research Letter

Dear Editor

Patients with rare diseases (RDs) often have limited treatment options, contributing to their strong desire to participate in research [6, 10]. However, many patients with RDs lack knowledge and experience in patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR), limiting their capacity to engage with PCOR researchers more specifically. To address this unmet need, the University of Maryland, Baltimore (UMB) in partnership with the National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD), developed a PCOR educational program specifically for patients with RDs and advocates to increase their ability to engage in PCOR. While framework-driven models are often advocated for use by outcome researchers and healthcare providers, [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] there are few to sustain interest inpublished examples of how to operationalize these frameworks. [3, 9].

This research letter provides an example of a multi-method patient-engagement approach used to develop a PCOR training program specifically for a...

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the contributions of the National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD) for their collaboration throughout the development and delivery of the training program; Dr. Divya Shridharmurthy for her project support. We thank the members of the project’s Patient Advisory Committee: Ron Bartek, Friedreich’s Ataxia Research Alliance; Marc Boutin, National Health Council; Christine Brown, National PKU Alliance; Laurie Burke, The Lora Group; Rachel Gomel, PSC Partners Seeking a Cure; Reta Honey Hiers, R.N.C., Tarlov Cyst Disease Foundation; Jack Kelly, Lymphangiomatosis & Gorham’s Disease Alliance; Jacqueline Kraska, formerly with NORD; C. Daniel Mullins, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy; and Christopher Scalchunes, Immune Deficiency Foundation.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This project was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute under contract 1036-UMD.

Conflict of Interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Sofolahan-Oladeinde Y, Newhouse RP, Lavallee DC, Huang JC, Mullins CD. Early assessment of the 10-step patient engagement framework for patient-centred outcomes research studies: the first three steps. Family Pract. 2017;34(3):272–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Vandigo J, Oloyede E, Aly A, Laird AL, Cooke CE, Mullins CD. Continuous patient engagement in cardiovascular disease clinical comparative effectiveness research. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconom Outcomes Res. 2016;16(2):193–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Mullins CD, Abdulhalim AM, Lavallee DC. Continuous patient engagement in comparative effectiveness research. JAMA. 2012;307(15):1587–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Forsythe LP, Szydlowski V, Murad MH, Ip S, Wang Z, Elraiyah TA, Fleurence R, Hickam DH. A systematic review of approaches for engaging patients for research on rare diseases. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(3):788–800.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, Suleman R. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. Patient. 2014;7(4):387–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ayme S, Kole A, Groft S. Empowerment of patients: lessons from the rare diseases community. Lancet. 2008;371(9629):2048–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kirwan JR, de Wit M, Bingham CO, Leong A, Richards P, Tugwell P, Voshaar M, Gossec L. Commentary: patients as partners: building on the experience of outcome measures in rheumatology. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016;68(6):1334–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Merkel PA, Manion M, Gopal-Srivastava R, Groft S, Jinnah H, Robertson D, Krischer JP. The partnership of patient advocacy groups and clinical investigators in the rare diseases clinical research network. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2016;11(1):66.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Available from: https://rarediseases.org/. Accessed.
  14. 14.
    Forsythe LP, Ellis LE, Edmundson L, Sabharwal R, Rein A, Konopka K, Frank L. Patient and stakeholder engagement in the PCORI pilot projects: description and lessons learned. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(1):13–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Molster C, Youngs L, Hammond E, Dawkins H. Key outcomes from stakeholder workshops at a symposium to inform the development of an Australian national plan for rare diseases. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2012;7(1):50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Coulter A. Patient engagement: what works? J Ambul Care Manag. 2012;35(2):80–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Forman J, Taruscio D, Llera VA, Barrera LA, Coté TR, Edfjäll C, Gavhed D, Haffner ME, Nishimura Y, Posada M. The need for worldwide policy and action plans for rare diseases. Acta Paediatr. 2012;101(8):805–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wästfelt M, Fadeel B, Henter J. A journey of hope: lessons learned from studies on rare diseases and orphan drugs. J Intern Med. 2006;260(1):1–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elisabeth M. Oehrlein
    • 1
    • 3
  • T. Rose Love
    • 1
    Email author
  • Chinenye Anyanwu
    • 2
  • Maya L. Hanna
    • 1
  • Jacqueline Kraska
    • 4
  • Eleanor M. Perfetto
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Pharmaceutical Health Services ResearchUniversity of Maryland School of PharmacyBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Patient-Centered Outcomes Research InstituteWashington, DCUSA
  3. 3.National Health CouncilWashington, DCUSA
  4. 4.National Organization for Rare DisordersWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations