Objective:To identify the elements necessary for successful collaboration between patient groups and academic and industry sponsors of clinical trials, in order to develop recommendations for best practices for effective patient group engagement.Methods:In-depth interviews, informed by a previously reported survey, were conducted to identify the fundamentals of successful patient group engagement. Thirty-two respondents from 3 sectors participated: patient groups, academic researchers, and industry. The findings were presented to a multistakeholder group of experts in January 2015. The expert group came to consensus on a set of actionable recommendations for best practices for patient groups and research sponsors.Results:Interview respondents acknowledged that not all patient groups are created equal in terms of what they can contribute to a clinical trial. The most important elements for effective patient group engagement include establishing meaningful partnerships, demonstrating mutual benefits, and collaborating as partners from the planning stage forward. Although there is a growing appreciation by sponsors about the benefits of patient group engagement, there remains some resistance and some uncertainty about how best to engage. Barriers include mismatched expectations and a perception that patient groups lack scientific sophistication and that “wishful thinking” may cloud their recommendations.Conclusions:Patient groups are developing diverse skillsets and acquiring assets to leverage in order to become collaborators with industry and academia on clinical trials. Growing numbers of research sponsors across the clinical trials enterprise are recognizing the benefits of continuous and meaningful patient group engagement, but there are still mindsets to change, and stakeholders need further guidance on operationalizing a new model of clinical trial conduct.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose: Healthcare-associated infections acquired a high degree of dissemination, being considered a serious public health problem and assumed as one of the most common adverse events associated with healthcare. They have a significant impact on health systems by increasing hospital expenses, and compromising the healthcare quality and effectiveness. Surgical site infections (SSI) are considered one of the most serious complications that can occur after an orthopaedic surgery. The aim of this study is to contribute to the development of a framework to analyse the costs of infections related to hip and knee arthroplasties. Methods: A literature review was conducted on databases, and articles published between January 2005 and April 2016 were searched. Findings: A total of 14 articles met the inclusion criteria. Costs were grouped in hospitalization and treatment dimensions. For hospitalization, the indicators were the length of stay (LOS) and/ or monetary costs; For treatment, the indicators were number of surgeries and LOS, or monetary costs. We observed that LOS is the most commonly used to estimate SSI direct costs. Patients who developed hip or knee arthroplasty infections remained in hospital 2.5-3 times longer and incurred hospital costs almost three times higher, when compared with an uninfected patient. KEYWORDSHip and knee arthroplasties; healthcare-associated infections (HAI); surgical site infections (SSI); length of stay; costs