Abstract
The desire for patient-centeredness and more pragmatic clinical trials is increasing. Pragmatic clinical trials are conducted in normal practices to answer whether interventions work in real-world settings, whereas explanatory clinical trials are conducted under stricter settings with tighter control to answer whether an intervention can work. While both explanatory and pragmatic trials can have patient-centered elements, pragmatic trials more directly answer patient and policymaker questions.
To ensure trials are truly reflective of what is meaningful to patients, patients and stakeholders should be engaged during the entire trial process—from planning the trial through conducting the trial to disseminating the results. Identifying, recruiting, training, continually engaging, and compensating an advisory committee of patients and stakeholders to serve as a resource and guide through the trial process is one way to increase the patient-centeredness of a trial. Patients can help design recruitment and retention strategies, codevelop endpoints, review consent forms, and identify appropriate dissemination channels. Patient involvement throughout the trial benefits not only the research team but the patients themselves as well as future patients. This chapter explores how to increase patient-centeredness in clinical trials by engaging patients and stakeholders throughout the pragmatic clinical trial process.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Methodology Committee of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (2012) Methodological standards and patient-centeredness in comparative effectiveness research: The PCORI perspective. JAMA 307(15):1636–1640. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.466
Mullins CD, Vandigo J, Zheng Z, Wicks P (2014) Patient-centeredness in the design of clinical trials. Value Health 17(4):471–475. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2014.02.012
Institute of Medicine (2012) Appendix D, Discussion Paper: The clinical trials enterprise in the United States: A call for disruptive innovation. In: Envisioning a transformed clinical trials enterprise in the United States: Establishing an agenda for 2020: Workshop summary. The National Academies Collection: Reports funded by National Institutes of Health. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. doi:10.17226/13345
N. I. H. Collaboratory (2014) Introduction to pragmatic clinical trials. Updated December 1, 2014. Duke University. http://sites.duke.edu/rethinkingclinicaltrials/introduction-to-pragmatic-clinical-trials/. Accessed 2 May 2016
Schwartz D, Lellouch J (1967) Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. J Chronic Dis 20(8):637–648
Loudon K, Treweek S, Sullivan F, Donnan P, Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M (2015) The PRECIS-2 tool: Designing trials that are fit for purpose. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 350:h2147–h2147
Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, Treweek S, Furberg CD, Altman DG, Tunis S, Bergel E, Harvey I, Magid DJ, Chalkidou K (2009) A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): A tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol 62(5):464–475. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12.011
Rosenthal GE (2014) The role of pragmatic clinical trials in the evolution of learning health systems. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc 125:204–216; discussion 217–208
Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ, Altman DG, Tunis S, Haynes B, Oxman AD, Moher D, for the CONSORT and Pragmatic Trials in Healthcare (Practihc) groups (2008) Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: An extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ 337(4):a2390. doi:10.1136/bmj.a2390
Freedman B (1987) Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med 317(3):141–145. doi:10.1056/NEJM198707163170304
Patsopoulos NA (2011) A pragmatic view on pragmatic trials. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 13(2):217–224
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (2015) What we mean by engagement. Updated 12 Oct 2015. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. http://www.pcori.org/funding-opportunities/what-we-mean-engagement. Accessed 2 May 2016
Mullins CD, Abdulhalim AM, Lavallee DC (2012) Continuous patient engagement in comparative effectiveness research. JAMA 307(15):1587–1588. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.442
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (2013) Introducing a new PCORI research funding initiative–large pragmatic clinical trials. Updated 18 Dec 2013. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. http://www.pcori.org/blog/introducing-new-pcori-research-funding-initiative-large-pragmatic-clinical-trials. Accessed 2 May 2016
Lancaster KJ, Schoenthaler AM, Midberry SA, Watts SO, Nulty MR, Cole HV, Ige E, Chaplin W, Ogedegbe G (2014) Rationale and design of Faith-based Approaches in the Treatment of Hypertension (FAITH), a lifestyle intervention targeting blood pressure control among black church members. Am Heart J 167(3):301–307. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2013.10.026
Leone LA, Allicock M, Pignone MP, Walsh JF, Johnson LS, Armstrong-Brown J, Carr CC, Langford A, Ni A, Resnicow K, Campbell MK (2016) Cluster randomized trial of a church-based peer counselor and tailored newsletter intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening and physical activity among older African Americans. Health Educ Behav 43(5):568–76. doi:10.1177/1090198115611877
PCORI. Engagement rubric for applicants. http://www.pcori.org/sites/default/files/Engagement-Rubric.pdf.
Hudson KL, Collins FS (2015) Sharing and reporting the results of clinical trials. JAMA 313(4):355–356. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.10716
Deverka PA, Lavallee DC, Desai PJ, Esmail LC, Ramsey SD, Veenstra DL, Tunis SR (2012) Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: Defining a framework for effective engagement. J Comp Eff Res 1(2):181–194. doi:10.2217/cer.12.7
Buckland S (1994) Unmet needs for health information: A literature review. Health Libr Rev 11(2):82–95
Evans D, Coad J, Cottrell K, Dalrymple J, Davies R, Donald C, Laterza V, Long A, Longley A, Moule P, Pollard K, Powell J, Puddicombe A, Rice C, Sayers R (2014) Public involvement in research: Assessing impact through a realist evaluation. Health Services and Delivery Research. NIHR Journals Library Copyright (c) Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2014. doi:10.3310/hsdr02360
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (2015) Financial compensation of patients, caregiver, and patient/caregiver organizations engaged in PCORI-funded research as engaged research partners. Updated June 10, 2015. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. http://www.pcori.org/sites/default/files/PCORI-Compensation-Framework-for-Engaged-Research-Partners.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2016
Katz ML, Archer LE, Peppercorn JM, Kereakoglow S, Collyar DE, Burstein HJ, Schilsky RL, Partridge AH (2012) Patient advocates' role in clinical trials: Perspectives from cancer and leukemia group B investigators and advocates. Cancer 118(19):4801–4805. doi:10.1002/cncr.27485
National Heart LaBI (2016) ALLHAT: Quick reference for health care providers. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/allhat/qckref.htm. Accessed 2 May 2016
Nallamothu BK, Hayward RA, Bates ER (2008) Beyond the randomized clinical trial: The role of effectiveness studies in evaluating cardiovascular therapies. Circulation 118(12):1294–1303. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.703579
Shih MC, Turakhia M, Lai TL (2015) Innovative designs of point-of-care comparative effectiveness trials. Contemp Clin Trials 45(Pt A):61–68. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2015.06.014
PATIENTS Program at University of Maryland (2014) University of Maryland School of Pharmacy. http://patients.umaryland.edu/. Accessed 31 May 2016
PatientsLikeMe (2016) PatientsLikeMe. https://www.patientslikeme.com/. Accessed 31 May 2016
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hung, A., Baas, C., Bekelman, J., Fitz-Randolph, M., Daniel Mullins, C. (2017). Patient and Stakeholder Engagement in Designing Pragmatic Clinical Trials. In: Birnbaum, H., Greenberg, P. (eds) Decision Making in a World of Comparative Effectiveness Research. Adis, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3262-2_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3262-2_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Adis, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-3261-5
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-3262-2
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)