Advertisement

Engaging the Patient: Patient-Centered Research

  • Lorraine B. JohnsonEmail author
  • Jaye Bea Smalley
Chapter

Abstract

There is a growing mandate for patients to play a role in the design and conduct of research to develop and assess drugs, devices, the healthcare system, and other health services and interventions. Often, patient engagement is conceived narrowly as the patient’s willingness and ability to participate in his or her care through patient engagement interventions that encourage patient participation. However, since most drugs, devices, and the healthcare system more broadly have not traditionally been developed with the patient perspective in mind, there is a growing consensus that patients should play a more active role on research teams to ensure that the perspective of the patient is represented and understood. To realize the promise of a patient-centered healthcare system, outcomes important to patients must be foundational. Accordingly, those outcomes should inform research to ensure that the technologies, interventions, and healthcare evidence are implemented into guidelines, policy, and ultimately care. This promise could potentially be realized if patients are centrally involved in research as part of the research teams and recognized as uniquely situated to provide the expertise of lived experience.

Keywords

Patient centered Patient engagement Empowered patients Patient representatives Patient partnership Arnstein’s ladder Patient-driven research Codevelopment Cocreation Patient-powered research Patient experience Bidirectional communication 

References

  1. Anderson M. Rx for innovation: a path forward for us all. Sci Transl Med. 2017;9:379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnstein SR. A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Planners. 1969;35(4):216–24.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett LM, Gadlin H, Levine-Finley S. Collaboration and team science: a field guide. In: Collaboration and team science: a field guide—team science toolkit. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health; 2010.Google Scholar
  4. Carman KL, Dardess P, Maurer M, Sofaer S, Adams K, Bechtel C, Sweeney J. Patient and family engagement: a framework for understanding the elements and developing interventions and policies. Health Aff. 2013;32(2):223–31.. Web. 30 May 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Denning S. How do you change an organizational culture. Forbes Magazine. 2016.Google Scholar
  6. Devereaux PJ, Anderson DR, Gardner MJ, Putnam W, Flowerdew GJ, Brownell BF, Nagpal S, Cox JL. Differences between perspectives of physicians and patients on anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation: observational study. Br Med J. 2001;323(7323):1218–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Emanuel EJ. Choice and representation in health care. Med Care Res Rev. 1999;56(1):113–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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. 2015;31(1):13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frank L, Basch E, Selby JV. The PCORI perspective on patient-centered outcomes research. JAMA. 2014;312(15):1513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garces JP, Lopez GP. Eliciting patient perspective in patient-centered outcomes research: a meta narrative systematic review. PCORI. 2016;. http://www.pcori.org/sites/default/files/Eliciting-Patient-Perspective-in-Patient-Centered-Outcomes-Research-A-Meta-Narrative-Systematic-Review1.pdf
  11. Institute of Medicine (Committee on Quality of Health Care in America). Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001. Available from: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309072808
  12. Institute of Medicine (IOM). The learning healthcare system: workshop summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  13. Institute of Medicine (Committee on Conflict of Interest in Medical Research E and Practice) Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice.Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  14. Institute of Medicine (US) Roundtable on Value & Science-Driven Health Care; Yong PL, Olsen LA, McGinnis JM, editors. Value in Health Care: Accounting for Cost, Quality, Safety, Outcomes, and Innovation. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2010. 2, Stakeholder Perspectives on Value. Available from:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK50926/
  15. Institute of Medicine. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011. Available from: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13058
  16. Institute of Medicine (US) Roundtable on Value & Science-Driven Health Care. Roundtable on value & science-driven health care. Institute of medicine: roundtable on value & science-driven health care: charter and vision statement. U.S. National Library of Medicine; 2016. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK50934/
  17. Macaulay AC, Commanda LE, Freeman WL, Gibson N, Mccabe ML, Robbins CM, Twohig PL. Participatory research maximises community and lay involvement. BMJ. 1999;319(7212):774–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. National Research Council. Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. In: Cooke NJ, Hilton ML, Committee on the Science of Team Science, Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, editors, vol. 208. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2015.Google Scholar
  19. O’Connor M. Nothing about us without us: patient involvement in research. 2016.Google Scholar
  20. PCORI Methodology Committee, The PCORI Methodology Report; 2013. Available from: https://www.pcori.org/sites/default/files/PCORI-Methodology-Report-November2013.pdf
  21. PCORI. Financial compensation of patients, caregivers, and patient/caregiver organizations engaged. In: PCORI-funded research as engaged research partners. PCORI. 2015.Google Scholar
  22. PCORI Engagement Rubric. PCORI (Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute) website. 2014. http://www.pcori.org/sites/default/files/Engagement-Rubric.pdf. Updated October 13, 2015.
  23. PCORI Methodology Standards. PCORI (Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute). 2016.Google Scholar
  24. Renn O, Webler T, Wiedemann PM. Fairness and competence in citizen participation: evaluating models for environmental discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic; 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sheridan S, Schrandt S, Forsythe L, Hilliard TS, Paez KA. The PCORI engagement rubric: promising practices for partnering in research. Ann Fam Med. 2017;15(2):165–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LymeDisease.orgSan RamonUSA
  2. 2.Global I & I Patient Advocacy and Life Cycle ManagementCelgene CorporationSummitUSA

Personalised recommendations