Objectives: Lack of clarity on the definition of "patient engagement" has been highlighted as a barrier to fully implementing patient engagement in research. This study identified themes within existing definitions related to patient engagement and proposes a consensus definition of "patient engagement in research." Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify definitions of patient engagement and related terms in published literature (2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015)(2016)(2017)(2018). Definitions were extracted and qualitatively analyzed to identify themes and characteristics. A multistakeholder approach, including academia, industry, and patient representation, was taken at all stages. A proposed definition is offered based on a synthesis of the findings.Results: Of 1821 abstracts identified and screened for eligibility, 317 were selected for full-text review. Of these, 169 articles met inclusion criteria, from which 244 distinct definitions were extracted for analysis. The most frequently defined terms were: "patient-centered" (30.5%), "patient engagement" (15.5%), and "patient participation" (13.4%). The majority of definitions were specific to the healthcare delivery setting (70.5%); 11.9% were specific to research. Among the definitions of "patient engagement," the most common themes were "active process," "patient involvement," and "patient as participant." In the research setting, the top themes were "patient as partner," "patient involvement," and "active process"; these did not appear in the top 3 themes of nonresearch definitions. Conclusion:Distinct themes are associated with the term "patient engagement" and with engagement in the "research" setting. Based on an analysis of existing literature and review by patient, industry, and academic stakeholders, we propose a scalable consensus definition of "patient engagement in research."

NCT00090779.

Background-Adherence is key to antiretroviral therapy (ART) success. Enhanced partner support may benefit patients with prior treatment failure.

Introduction Transparent collaborations between patient organisations (POs) and clinical research sponsors (CRS) can identify and address the unmet needs of patients and caregivers. These insights can improve clinical trial participant experience and delivery of medical innovations necessary to advance health outcomes and standards of care. We share our experiences from such a collaboration undertaken surrounding the SENSCIS® clinical trial (NCT02597933), and discuss its impact during, and legacy beyond, the trial.Summary We describe the establishment of a community advisory board (CAB): a transparent, multiyear collaboration between the scleroderma patient community and a CRS. We present shared learnings from the collaboration, which is split into three main areas: (1) the implementation and conduct of the clinical trial; (2) analysis and dissemination of the results; and (3) aspects of the collaboration not related to the trial.1. The scleroderma CAB reviewed and provided advice on trial conduct and reporting. This led to the improvement and optimisation of trial procedures; meaningful, patient-focused adaptations were made to address challenges relevant to scleroderma-associated interstitial lung disease patients.2. To ensure that results of the trial were accessible to lay audiences and patients, written lay summaries were developed by the trial sponsor with valuable input from the CAB to ensure that language and figures were understandable.3. The CAB and the CRS also collaborated to co-develop opening tools for medication blister packs and bottles. In addition, to raise disease awareness among physicians, patients and caregivers, educational materials to improve diagnosis and management of scleroderma were co-created and delivered by the CAB and CRS.Conclusions This collaboration between POs and a CRS, in a rare disease condition, led to meaningful improvements in patient safety, comfort and self-management and addressed information needs. This collaboration may serve as a template of best practice for future collaborations between POs, research sponsors and other healthcare stakeholders.

No abstract