26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Patient Preference and Adherence (submit here)

      This international, peer-reviewed Open Access journal by Dove Medical Press focuses on the growing importance of patient preference and adherence throughout the therapeutic process. Sign up for email alerts here.

      34,896 Monthly downloads/views I 2.314 Impact Factor I 3.8 CiteScore I 1.14 Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) I 0.629 Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Patient involvement in clinical research: why, when, and how

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The development of a patient-centered approach to medicine is gradually allowing more patients to be involved in their own medical decisions. However, this change is not happening at the same rate in clinical research, where research generally continues to be carried out on patients, but not with patients. This work describes the why, when, and how of more active patient participation in the research process. Specific measures are proposed to improve patient involvement in 1) setting priorities, 2) study leadership and design, 3) improved access to clinical trials, 4) preparation and oversight of the information provided to participants, 5) post-study evaluation of the patient experience, and 6) the dissemination and application of results. In order to achieve these aims, the relative emphases on the ethical principles underlying research need to be changed. The current model based on the principle of beneficence must be left behind, and one that upholds the ethical principles of autonomy and non maleficence should be embraced. There is a need to improve the level of information that patients and society as a whole have on research objectives and processes; the goal is to promote the gradual emergence of the expert patient.

          Most cited references73

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability.

          Institutional review boards (IRBs) are charged with safeguarding potential research subjects with limited literacy but may have an inadvertent role in promulgating unreadable consent forms. We hypothesized that text provided by IRBs in informed-consent forms falls short of the IRBs' own readability standards and that readability is influenced by the level of research activity, local literacy rates, and federal oversight. To test these hypotheses, we conducted a cross-sectional study linking data from several public-use sources. A total of 114 Web sites of U.S. medical schools were surveyed for IRB readability standards and informed-consent-form templates. Actual readability was measured with the Flesch-Kincaid scale, which assigns a score on the basis of the minimal grade level required to read and understand English text (range, 0 to 12). Data on the level of research activity, local literacy rates, and federal oversight were obtained from organizational Web sites. The average readability score for text provided by IRBs was 10.6 (95 percent confidence interval, 10.3 to 10.8) on the Flesch-Kincaid scale. Specific readability standards, found on 61 Web sites (54 percent), ranged from a 5th-grade reading level to a 10th-grade reading level. The mean Flesch-Kincaid scores for the readability of sample text provided by IRBs exceeded the stated standard by 2.8 grade levels (95 percent confidence interval, 2.4 to 3.2; P<0.001). Readability was not associated with either the level of research funding (P=0.89) or local rates of literacy (P=0.92). However, the 52 schools that had been made subject to oversight by the Office for Human Research Protections (46 percent) had lower Flesch-Kincaid scores than the other schools (10.2 vs. 10.9, P=0.005). IRBs commonly provide text for informed-consent forms that falls short of their own readability standards. Federal oversight is associated with better readability. Copyright 2003 Massachusetts Medical Society
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The randomized registry trial--the next disruptive technology in clinical research?

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Collecting data on patient experience is not enough: they must be used to improve care.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Patient Prefer Adherence
                Patient Prefer Adherence
                Patient Preference and Adherence
                Patient preference and adherence
                Dove Medical Press
                1177-889X
                2016
                27 April 2016
                : 10
                : 631-640
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Medical Department, Lilly Spain, Madrid, Spain
                [2 ]Myeloma Patients Europe, Madrid, Spain
                [3 ]Research Ethics Committee, University Hospital Puerta de Hierro, Madrid, Spain
                [4 ]Oncology Department, Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain
                [5 ]FEDER (Spanish Federation for Rare Diseases), Madrid, Spain
                [6 ]National Association of Health Journalists, Madrid, Spain
                [7 ]Clinical Open Innovation, Lilly Europe, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
                Author notes
                Correspondence: José A Sacristán, Medical Department, Lilly Spain, Avda de la Industria 30, 28108 Alcobendas, Madrid, Spain, Tel +34 91 663 5284, Fax +34 91 663 5231, Email sacristan_jose@ 123456lilly.com
                Article
                ppa-10-631
                10.2147/PPA.S104259
                4854260
                27175063
                79811a73-03e4-4559-9cd5-61b2efab1a11
                © 2016 Sacristán et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                History
                Categories
                Review

                Medicine
                patients,research,clinical trials,bioethics,engagement
                Medicine
                patients, research, clinical trials, bioethics, engagement

                Comments

                Comment on this article