ArticlePDF Available

Editorial: The European Patients Academy on Therapeutic Innovation (EUPATI) Guidelines on Patient Involvement in Research and Development

Frontiers
Frontiers in Medicine
Authors:
Per Spindler
Per Spindler
Per Spindler
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Beatriz S. Lima
Beatriz S. Lima
Beatriz S. Lima
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Download full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation

Figures

Figures - available from: Frontiers in Medicine
This content is subject to copyright.
Access to this full-text is provided by Frontiers.
Learn more
Content available from Frontiers in Medicine 
This content is subject to copyright.
EDITORIAL
published: 08 November 2018
doi: 10.3389/fmed.2018.00310
Frontiers in Medicine | www.frontiersin.org 1November 2018 | Volume 5 | Article 310
Edited by:
Michel Goldman,
Free University of Brussels, Belgium
Reviewed by:
Scott S. Wagers,
Consultant, Maasmechelen, Belgium
D. J. A. Crommelin,
Utrecht University, Netherlands
*Correspondence:
Per Spindler
pesp@biopeople.ku.dk
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Regulatory Science,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Medicine
Received: 04 October 2018
Accepted: 22 October 2018
Published: 08 November 2018
Citation:
Spindler P and Lima BS (2018)
Editorial: The European Patients
Academy on Therapeutic Innovation
(EUPATI) Guidelines on Patient
Involvement in Research and
Development. Front. Med. 5:310.
doi: 10.3389/fmed.2018.00310
Editorial: The European Patients
Academy on Therapeutic Innovation
(EUPATI) Guidelines on Patient
Involvement in Research and
Development
Per Spindler 1
*and Beatriz S. Lima 2
1Biopeople, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2Instituto de
Investigação do Medicamento (iMed.ULisboa), Lisbon, Portugal
Keywords: EUPATI, european patients academy on therapeutic innovation, patient involvement, patient advocacy,
innovative medicines
Editorial on the Research Topic
The European Patients Academy on Therapeutic Innovation (EUPATI) Guidelines on Patient
Involvement in Research in Development
Our colleagues and we are working toward improving health by speeding up the development of
and patient access to innovative medicines, particularly in areas where there is an unmet medical
or social need. It appears pivotal that key players of health care research collaborate on involving
patients in research, which may hugely benefit the medicines development process: by bringing
their priorities, perspectives, and knowledge about their own diseases to the table, patients can
contribute to developing better treatments. Thus, there is a call for action to trigger a major rethink
of the way patients and the public understand the medicines development process and their own
involvement. There is an additional need to shape and facilitate the ways patients and patient
organizations can be involved to handle the many complex ethical, legal and other issues intrinsic
to the development process.
The European Patients’ Academy on Therapeutic Innovation (EUPATI) was established as part
of the partnership between the European Union and the European pharmaceutical industry, the
so-called Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI). EUPATI has set up structures to develop and
disseminate accessible, well-structured, comprehensive, scientifically reliable, and user-friendly
educational material for patients on the processes of medicines research and development (R&D).
Like EUPATI, we believe that once armed with a deeper understanding patients, patient experts and
patient advocates will be even more empowered to work effectively with the relevant authorities,
healthcare professionals and industry to influence the medicines development process for the
benefit of patients and society.
Patient organizations, academia, not-for-profit organizations, and pharmaceutical companies
are represented in the EUPATI partnership. Together, through reviews and a process of public
consultation, sets of policies and standards for patient’s involvement in medicines research and
development have been published. Thus, through the collaboration between multiple stakeholder
and interest groups, conflict of interest in presentations and views is managed and controlled
through transparent procedures. We therefore envisage that the guidelines will be used in relevant
stakeholder communities and that they will contribute to the development of internal operating
procedures in organizations and companies.
Spindler and Lima Editorial
FIGURE 1 | Patient involvement in medicines R&D: Patients can meaningfully contribute across the process of medicines R&D. This diagram illustrates the R&D
process that require expertise in the respective disease areas. The guidances for patient involvement covered by EUPATI is the ethical review, the regulatory processes
including regulatory affairs, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and the industry-led research and development of medicines. ©EUPATI, under a Creative Commons
license CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Used with permission.
Each of four contemporary fields of patient involvement in
medicines research and development are covered in publications
(Figure 1).
First, Health Technology Assessment (HTA). HTA is to
inform decision making by health care policy makers and is
the basic process that evaluates the use of health technologies
and generally involves a critical review of international evidence
related to clinical effectiveness of the health technology vs. the
best standard of care. The outcome of HTA is recommendations
whether or not a health technology should be used, and
if so, how it is best used and which patients are most
likely to benefit from it. Thus, the patient perspectives on
experiences and preferences in the HTA process are valuable.
The EUPATI Guidance for Patient Involvement in Medicines
Research and Development: Health Technology Assessment
provides recommendations for activities to support patient
involvement in HTA bodies and specific guidance for individual
HTA processes (Hunter et al.). The publication also discusses
the recent progress in, and continuing barriers to, patient
involvement in HTA.
Secondly, the EUPATI guidance for patient involvement
in medicines research and development (R&D); Guidance
for pharmaceutical industry-led medicines R&D covers the
interaction between patients and the pharmaceutical industry
within all functions throughout the medicines R&D lifecycle
in relation to medicines for human use (Warner et al.). This
publication relates to activities both pre-approval and post
marketing, and involving both individuals and groups of patients.
Thirdly, the EUPATI and Patients in Medicines Research
and Development: Guidance for Patient Involvement in Ethical
Review of Clinical Trials gives recommendations for involving
patients in the work of ethics committees (Klingmann et al.). This
publication provides additionally definitions and a presentation
of the broader context of involvement of patients in ethical
evaluations.
Finally and fourthly, the EUPATI and Patients in Medicines
Research and Development: Guidance for Patient Involvement
in Regulatory Processes covers patient involvement in the
regulatory field and draws on the “Framework for interaction
between the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and
Frontiers in Medicine | www.frontiersin.org 2November 2018 | Volume 5 | Article 310
Spindler and Lima Editorial
patients and consumers and their organizations” (Haerry
et al.). It expands on the EMA framework, specifically
including National Competent Authorities (NCAs). It sets
out objectives for patient involvement in medicines regulation
and recommends concrete suggested working practices.
It is primarily aimed at regulatory authorities wishing
to interact with patients or their organizations in their
activities but could also be considered by patients/patient
organizations planning to collaborate with regulatory
authorities.
We are thankful to the team of collaborating organizations
and individuals in EUPATI and IMI for the production of
these sets of guidelines, and we are looking forward to fruitful
follow-on actions aimed at providing accessible medicines
to patients in need. We trust that patients’ involvement is
one of the significant elements of medicines research and
development in the future, and we wish you a pleasant and useful
read.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectual
contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.
Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was
conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2018 Spindler and Lima. This is an open-access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use,
distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original
author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication
in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use,
distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Frontiers in Medicine | www.frontiersin.org 3November 2018 | Volume 5 | Article 310
Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
... Hence, the mission of PAGs is to assist with attaining diversity and equal representation of populations in trials, especially with patients with comorbidities who are more prone to be severely affected by infections [8], as well as overcome other barriers, such as language and limited health education. For example, the European Patients Forum operates to make patient organization voices heard and contends with policy-formulating processes affecting patients across Europe [9]. Alternatively, the European Patients' Academy on Therapeutic Innovation acts to engage patients through their Patient Expert Training Programme that operates to educate and train in the context of medicine development and research [9]. ...
... For example, the European Patients Forum operates to make patient organization voices heard and contends with policy-formulating processes affecting patients across Europe [9]. Alternatively, the European Patients' Academy on Therapeutic Innovation acts to engage patients through their Patient Expert Training Programme that operates to educate and train in the context of medicine development and research [9]. These initiatives raise patients' awareness and health literacy and may alleviate concerns regarding clinical trial research. ...
... Recruiting and accurately training the medical team to execute all aspects and stages of a clinical trial are also of high importance to instill confidence in and attract the attention of potential volunteers. Communication regarding any concerns a potential volunteer may have, a clear breakdown of all information regarding the medication or vaccine, description of any symptoms and procedures to be carried out, and volunteer support are all key factors a trial team should be able to deliver [9]. ...
Perspectives of European Patient Advocacy Groups on Volunteer Registries and Vaccine Trials: VACCELERATE Survey Study
Article
Full-text available
  • Apr 2024
Background: The VACCELERATE Pan-European Scientific network aims to strengthen the foundation of vaccine trial research across Europe by following the principles of equity, inclusion, and diversity. The VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry network provides access to vaccine trial sites across the European region and supports a sustainable volunteer platform for identifying potential participants for forthcoming vaccine clinical research. Objective: The aim of this study was to approach members of patient advocacy groups (PAGs) across Europe to assess their willingness to register for the VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry and their perspectives related to participating in vaccine trials. Methods: In an effort to understand how to increase recruitment for the VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry, a standardized survey was developed in English and translated into 8 different languages (Dutch, English, French, German, Greek, Italian, Spanish, and Swedish) by the respective National Coordinator team. The online, anonymous survey was circulated, from March 2022 to May 2022, to PAGs across 10 European countries (Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Spain, and Sweden) to share with their members. The questionnaire constituted of multiple choice and open-ended questions evaluating information regarding participants’ perceptions on participating in vaccine trials and their willingness to become involved in the VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry. Results: In total, 520 responses were collected and analyzed. The PAG members reported that the principal criteria influencing their decision to participate in clinical trials overall are (1) the risks involved, (2) the benefits that will be gained from their potential participation, and (3) the quality and quantity of information provided regarding the trial. The survey revealed that, out of the 520 respondents, 133 individuals across all age groups were “positive” toward registering in the VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry, with an additional 47 individuals reporting being “very positive.” Respondents from Northern European countries were 1.725 (95% CI 1.206-2.468) times more likely to be willing to participate in the VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry than respondents from Southern European countries. Conclusions: Factors discouraging participants from joining vaccine trial registries or clinical trials primarily include concerns of the safety of novel vaccines and a lack of trust in those involved in vaccine development. These outcomes aid in identifying issues and setbacks in present registries, providing the VACCELERATE network with feedback on how to potentially increase participation and enrollment in trials across Europe. Development of European health communication strategies among diverse public communities, especially via PAGs, is the key for increasing patients’ willingness to participate in clinical studies.
View
... -Train patients on general research and development processes, similar to the European Patients' Academy on Therapeutic Innovation (EUPATI) training (44). Specifically: ...
... The second request from patients, to focus the ethical debate on health benefit, is especially significant as until now, the debate on ethical aspects of ATMPs has focused almost exclusively on the risk of human enhancement or on the morality of the use of embryonic cells. Thus, a broader more balanced discussion with multiple stakeholders on the ethics of ATMPs is required (44)(45)(46)(47)(48). A broader, balanced, discussion on ethical aspects should be envisioned with multiple stakeholders. ...
Perspectives, Expectations, and Concerns of European Patient Advocates on Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products
Article
Full-text available
  • Nov 2021
This paper presents the results of a qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews of 10 expert patient advocates on several different issues around Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs). The interviews were conducted between February and May 2020 based on a guideline with a list of 8 topics that covered concerns about safety and ethics, access problems and limitations, pricing of ATMPs and educational needs for patient communities. Overall, the interviewees expressed a high degree of convergence of opinions on most of the topics and especially on the identification of the reasons for concern. Conversely, when asked about possible solutions, quite a wide range of solutions were proposed, although with many common points. However, it highlights that the debate is still in its infancy and that there are not yet consolidated positions across the whole community. A general concern emerging from all the interviews is the potential limitation of access to approved ATMPs, both due to the high prices and to the geographical concentration of treatment centers. However, patients recognize the value of a model with a limited number of specialized clinical centers administering these therapies. On the ethical side, patients do not show particular concern as long as ATMPs and the underlying technology is used to treat severe diseases. Finally, patients are asking for both more education on ATMPs as well as for a more continuous involvement of patient representatives in the whole “life-cycle” of a new ATMP, from the development phase to the authorization, from the definition of the reimbursement scheme to the collection of Real Word Data on safety and long-term efficacy of the treatment.
View
... Additional PPI, in medicine research and development, was recommended by the European Patients Academy on Therapeutic Innovation (EUPATI), where patient organizations worked with academics, non-profit organizations, and pharmaceutical companies 28 . In this instance, patient experts and advocates engaged effectively with relevant authorities to influence medicine development. ...
How patient/public involvement impacts the research journey – an overview of the visual impairment research field
Article
  • Sep 2023
Importance – Optimized communication between patients and public, specifically the visually impaired (VI) and VI researchers, is vital for effective patient/public involvement (PPI) in health research. Objectives - We reviewed evidence outlining effective bidirectional communication strategies in research that improve connectivity between researchers and the public, with specific reference to visual impairment perspectives. Evidence review - In health research, a disconnect exists between research outcomes and informing patients and public about research advances and novel pre-clinical research, an interaction that is fundamental for mutual benefit. This creates barriers between patients or service-users and the researcher, as researchers are perceived to have higher level technical knowledge but limited know-how of the real-world experience of service users that might impact on the translation of their research. Findings - Active PPI is endorsed by funding bodies/agencies to facilitate proactive and productive engagement between service users and researchers. Effective communication strategies/tools can help researchers facilitate this engagement. Conclusions and relevance - PPI inception into mainstream research is protracted but contemporary communication strategies can effectively overcome these issues. We strongly advocate that pre-doctoral students receive PPI training at early career stages, and that patients and public have access to similar training, while Principal Investigators (PIs) are key actors ensuring PPI becomes mainstream in health research.
View
... Background Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE), defined as "research being carried out 'with' or 'by' members of the public (including patients and carers) rather than 'to', 'about' or 'for' them" [1,2], has been emphasized as an integral part of the research process by multiple health agencies and funding bodies [3][4][5][6]. This is because of its importance in creating meaningful research studies and outcomes across diverse patient needs. ...
Mobilising patient and public involvement in the development of real-world digital technology solutions: tutorial from the Mobilise-D consortium (Preprint)
Article
Full-text available
  • Nov 2022
  • J MED INTERNET RES
Although the value of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) activities in the development of new interventions and tools is well known, little guidance exists on how to perform these activities in a meaningful way. This is particularly true within large research consortia that target multiple objectives, include multiple patient groups, and work across many countries. Without clear guidance, there is a risk that PPIE may not capture patient opinions and needs correctly, thereby reducing the usefulness and effectiveness of new tools. Mobilise-D is an example of a large research consortium that aims to develop new digital outcome measures for real-world walking in 4 patient cohorts. Mobility is an important indicator of physical health. As such, there is potential clinical value in being able to accurately measure a person’s mobility in their daily life environment to help researchers and clinicians better track changes and patterns in a person’s daily life and activities. To achieve this, there is a need to create new ways of measuring walking. Recent advancements in digital technology help researchers meet this need. However, before any new measure can be used, researchers, health care professionals, and regulators need to know that the digital method is accurate and both accepted by and produces meaningful outcomes for patients and clinicians. Therefore, this paper outlines how PPIE structures were developed in the Mobilise-D consortium, providing details about the steps taken to implement PPIE, the experiences PPIE contributors had within this process, the lessons learned from the experiences, and recommendations for others who may want to do similar work in the future. The work outlined in this paper provided the Mobilise-D consortium with a foundation from which future PPIE tasks can be created and managed with clearly defined collaboration between researchers and patient representatives across Europe. This paper provides guidance on the work required to set up PPIE structures within a large consortium to promote and support the creation of meaningful and efficient PPIE related to the development of digital mobility outcomes.
View
... Last but not least, the European Patients Academy on Therapeutic Innovation (EUPATI) 56 has developed guidelines on patient involvement in research and development. 57 EUPATI has set up structures to develop and disseminate accessible, well-structured, comprehensive, scientifically reliable, and user-friendly educational material for patients on the process of medicines research and development. They argue that once armed with a deeper and better understanding of patients, patient experts, and patient advocates, it will be easier to work more effectively with the relevant authorities, healthcare professionals and industry. ...
A Systematic Review of Patient Engagement Experiences in Brain Disorders
Article
Full-text available
  • Dec 2022
Background Patient engagement is increasingly considered to be an important element in the treatment of brain disorders to optimise outcomes for patients, society, and healthcare systems. Nonetheless, scientific research examining methodologies to engage patients with brain diseases in Research and Innovation (R&I) is scarce. Aim To review existing scientific evidence regarding the engagement of patients with brain disorders in research and innovation. Methods Studies were retrieved from several bibliographic databases (publication date between January 2016 and April 2019) with pre-specified selection criteria. Results In total, 49 articles were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria and were reviewed systematically. Results showed that there is limited evidence available on the impact and (cost-) effectiveness of patient engagement in (brain) research and innovation. Most published studies are protocols, guidelines, and discussion articles for patient engagement in health research and innovation. Overall, there exists a general consensus to engage patients in every step of the research procedure. Relevant evidence identified includes principles of engagement, definitions of stakeholder types, key considerations for planning, conducting and disseminating engaged research, potential engagement activities, and examples of promising practices. Discussion Findings are inconclusive due to methodological differences. Comparison between studies was difficult due to differences in patients, form of engagements, and total duration of engagement of patients. Experiences of patient engagement mainly concern adherence to medical treatments or participation of “expert patients” in clinical trials, but very rarely the governance of R&I according to the dictates of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). More structuralized, well-conducted and comparable Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are needed to be able to make evidence-based recommendations on how to increase effective patient engagement in research and innovation and assess the impact and (cost)-effectiveness.
View
... Background Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE), defined as "research being carried out 'with' or 'by' members of the public (including patients and carers) rather than 'to', 'about' or 'for' them" [1,2], has been emphasized as an integral part of the research process by multiple health agencies and funding bodies [3][4][5][6]. This is because of its importance in creating meaningful research studies and outcomes across diverse patient needs. ...
Mobilising patient and public involvement in the development of real-world digital technology solutions: tutorial from the Mobilise-D consortium (Preprint)
Preprint
Full-text available
  • Nov 2022
UNSTRUCTURED Mobility is an important indicator of physical health. As such there is potential clinical value in being able to measure mobility accurately in a person’s home and daily life environment to help researchers and clinicians to better track changes and patterns in a person’s daily lives and activities. To do this, there is a need to create new ways of measuring walking. Recent advancements in digital technology are helping researchers to do this. However, before any new measure can be used, researchers, healthcare professionals and regulators need to know that the digital method is accurate and that it is both accepted and produces meaningful outcomes for the patients and clinicians. Researchers must therefore include patients, or members of patient organisations, in the development of such new tools in a process known as patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE). Although the value and importance of PPIE activities is well-known, little guidance exists on how to do this in a meaningful way. This is particularly true within large research consortia that target multiple objectives, include multiple patient groups and work across many countries. Without clear guidance, the risk is that PPIE does not capture patient opinions and needs correctly, thereby reducing the usefulness and effectiveness of new tools. Mobilise-D is an example of such a large research consortium, that is looking to develop new digital outcome measures for real-world walking in patients with Parkinson’s Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, and Proximal Femoral Fracture. This paper outlines how PPIE structures were developed in this consortium, providing detail about how this happened, the steps taken to implement PPIE, the experiences PPIE contributors have had within this process, the lessons learned from it, and recommendations for others who may want to do similar work in the future. The work outlined within this paper has provided the Mobilise-D consortium with a foundation from which future PPIE tasks can be created and managed with clearly defined collaboration between researchers and patient representatives across Europe. This paper provides guidance around the work required to set up PPIE structures within a large consortium, to promote and support the creation of meaningful and efficient PPIE related to the development of digital mobility outcomes.
View
... Indeed, MULTI-ACT provides guidance and tools for providing the needed skills, knowledge and competence for patients to participate in the research team together with all the other stakeholders, with their specific and valuable "experiential" assets. The three innovative assets of the MULTI-ACT patient engagement guidelines [46] are (i) the Engagement Coordination Team, an innovative governance body to ensure stakeholder representativeness and co-accountability for patient engagement; (ii) a training focused on how to empower patients to cooperate and to integrate their experiential knowledge into the research, complementing existing training to make patients "experts" [47]; and (iii) the importance of understanding and measuring the impact of R&I on outcomes that matter to patients (patient-reported dimension) as core and transverse dimensions of the co-accountability model. ...
The MULTI-ACT model: the path forward for participatory and anticipatory governance in health research and care
Article
Full-text available
  • Dec 2022
  • Health Res Pol Syst
The COVID-19 pandemic has unmasked even more clearly the need for research and care to form a unique and interdependent ecosystem, a concept which has emerged in recent years. In fact, to address urgent and unexpected missions such as “fighting all together the COVID-19 pandemic”, the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, mission-oriented governance and flexibility has been demonstrated with great efficacy. This calls for a policy integration strategy and implementation of responsible research and innovation principles in health, promoting an effective cooperation between science and society towards a shared mission. This article describes the MULTI-ACT framework and discusses how its innovative approach, encompassing governance criteria, patient engagement and multidisciplinary impact assessment, represents a holistic management model for structuring responsible research and innovation participatory governance in brain conditions research.
View
... This methodology can be considered in light of the idea of improving patient engagement as highlighted by the EUPATI PARADIGM project (P. Spindler & Lima, B. S., 2018). This methodology needs to be further validated through administration to patients suffering from different pathologies, and compared to the methodologies already available from international sources. ...
Development of an innovative methodology to define patient-designed quality of life: a new version of a wellknown concept in healthcare
Chapter
Full-text available
  • Jan 2021
This book includes 40 peer-reviewed short papers submitted to the Scientific Conference titled Statistics and Information Systems for Policy Evaluation, aimed at promoting new statistical methods and applications for the evaluation of policies and organized by the Association for Applied Statistics (ASA) and the Dept. of Statistics, Computer Science, Applications DiSIA “G. Parenti” of the University of Florence, jointly with the partners AICQ (Italian Association for Quality Culture), AICQ-CN (Italian Association for Quality Culture North and Centre of Italy), AISS (Italian Academy for Six Sigma), ASSIRM (Italian Association for Marketing, Social and Opinion Research), Comune di Firenze, the SIS – Italian Statistical Society, Regione Toscana and Valmon – Evaluation & Monitoring.
View
... One way of addressing these challenges is the model of a public-private partnership of engaged, knowledgeable and complementary industrial, academic and patient partners. In addition, there is extensive published evidence to suggest that involving people with lived experience of a condition in all stages of clinical trial design, both for interventional and observational studies, is important for successful implementation, outcomes and future decision-making [12][13][14][15][16]. This is also recognized by both EFPIA and IMI who have made active efforts to increase the involvement of people living with the condition studied in research projects they fund [17][18][19]. ...
Making the patient voice heard in a research consortium: experiences from an EU project (IMI-APPROACH)
Article
Full-text available
  • Dec 2021
APPROACH is an EU-wide research consortium with the goal to identify different subgroups of knee osteoarthritis to enable future differential diagnosis and treatment. During a 2-year clinical study images, biomarkers and clinical data are collected from people living with knee osteoarthritis and data are analyzed to confirm patterns that can indicate such different subgroups. A Patient Council (PC) has been set up at project initiation and consists of five people from Norway, The Netherlands and UK. Initially, this group of individuals had to learn how to effectively work with each other and with the researchers. Today, the PC is a strong team that is fully integrated in the consortium and acknowledged by researchers as an important sounding board. The article describes this journey looking at formal processes of involvement – organizational structure, budget, meetings – and more informal processes such as building relationships and changing researcher perceptions. It describes how the PC helped improve the experience and engagement of study participants by providing input to the clinical protocol and ensuring effective communication (e.g. through direct interactions with participants and newsletters). Furthermore, the PC is helping with dissemination of results and project advocacy, and overall provides the patient perspective to researchers. Additionally, the authors experienced and describe the intangible benefits such as a shift in researcher attitudes and a sense of community and purpose for PC members. Importantly, learnings reported in this article also include the challenges, such as effective integration of the PC with researchers’ work in the early phase of the project. Trial registration US National Library of Medicine, NCT03883568 , retrospectively registered 21 March 2019.
View
Confronting Racism in All Forms of Pain Research: A Shared Commitment for Engagement, Diversity, and Dissemination
Article
Full-text available
  • Feb 2022
  • J PAIN
This third paper in the “Confronting Racism in All Forms of Pain Research” series discusses adopting an antiracism framework across all pain research disciplines and highlights the significant benefits of doing so. We build upon the previous call to action and the proposed reframing of study designs articulated in the other papers in the series and seek to confront and eradicate racism through a shared commitment to change current research practices. Specifically, we emphasize the systematic disadvantage created by racialization (ie, the Eurocentric social and political process of ascribing racialized identities to a relationship, social practice, or group) and discuss how engaging communities in partnership can increase the participation of racialized groups in research studies and enrich the knowledge gained. Alongside this critical work, we indicate why diversifying the research environment (ie, research teams, labs, departments, and culture) enriches our scientific discovery and promotes recruitment and retention of participants from racialized groups. Finally, we recommend changes in reporting and dissemination practices so that we do not stigmatize or reproduce oppressive forms of power for racialized groups. Although this shift may be challenging in some cases, the increase in equity, generalizability, and credibility of the data produced will expand our knowledge and reflect the pain experiences of all communities more accurately. Perspective Perspective: In this third paper in our series, we advocate for a shared commitment toward an antiracism framework in pain research. We identify community partnerships, diversification of research environments, and changes to our dissemination practices as areas where oppressive forms of power can be reduced.
View
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.