Patient and Public Involvement in Pharmacoepidemiological Research: An Environmental Scan of an Emerging Area.

IF 2.4 4区医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1002/pds.70080

Rigoureau Julie, Busnel Yael, Havet Anaïs, Termoz Anne, Haesebaert Julie, Viprey Marie

{"title":"Patient and Public Involvement in Pharmacoepidemiological Research: An Environmental Scan of an Emerging Area.","authors":"Rigoureau Julie, Busnel Yael, Havet Anaïs, Termoz Anne, Haesebaert Julie, Viprey Marie","doi":"10.1002/pds.70080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is required to improve the relevance, feasibility, and interpretability. However, research on PPIs in pharmacoepidemiology (PE) is still limited. This study aimed to provide an overview of PPI implementation in pharmacoepidemiology through an environmental scan.Methods: The environmental scan combined systematic reviews and expert interviews. A systematic review was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from January 1, 2010, to June 30, 2023, to identify PE studies in which PPIs were mentioned. An additional review covered British Medical Journal's (BMJ) original articles from January 1, 2019, to June 30, 2023, via a similar method. In parallel, a cross-sectional study was conducted with a standardized questionnaire for French PE research teams, involving interviews via videoconference.Results: We identified 3615 references for screening, among which 232 were selected for full-text screening. However, no studies have reported the use of PPIs in PE studies. The additional BMJ review identified 1058 references, 74 of which met the full-text selection criteria, and eight were included. Of 13 French PE research teams surveyed, three had prior PPI experience, and 12 affirmed the relevance of PPI in PE. The respondents identified barriers such as PE's complexity (n = 9). They suggested training for patients (n = 9) and collaboration with specialist teams (n = 5) to facilitate PPI.Conclusion: Our environmental scan highlighted the emergence and relevance of PPIs in PE studies, even though they are still uncommon. Tools are needed to acculture and assist PE researchers in engaging in PPIs.","PeriodicalId":19782,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","volume":"34 1","pages":"e70080"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11706696/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.70080","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is required to improve the relevance, feasibility, and interpretability. However, research on PPIs in pharmacoepidemiology (PE) is still limited. This study aimed to provide an overview of PPI implementation in pharmacoepidemiology through an environmental scan.

Methods: The environmental scan combined systematic reviews and expert interviews. A systematic review was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from January 1, 2010, to June 30, 2023, to identify PE studies in which PPIs were mentioned. An additional review covered British Medical Journal's (BMJ) original articles from January 1, 2019, to June 30, 2023, via a similar method. In parallel, a cross-sectional study was conducted with a standardized questionnaire for French PE research teams, involving interviews via videoconference.

Results: We identified 3615 references for screening, among which 232 were selected for full-text screening. However, no studies have reported the use of PPIs in PE studies. The additional BMJ review identified 1058 references, 74 of which met the full-text selection criteria, and eight were included. Of 13 French PE research teams surveyed, three had prior PPI experience, and 12 affirmed the relevance of PPI in PE. The respondents identified barriers such as PE's complexity (n = 9). They suggested training for patients (n = 9) and collaboration with specialist teams (n = 5) to facilitate PPI.

Conclusion: Our environmental scan highlighted the emergence and relevance of PPIs in PE studies, even though they are still uncommon. Tools are needed to acculture and assist PE researchers in engaging in PPIs.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

患者和公众参与药物流行病学研究：一个新兴领域的环境扫描。

背景：研究需要患者和公众参与，以提高相关性、可行性和可解释性。然而，在药物流行病学（PE）中对PPIs的研究仍然有限。本研究旨在通过环境扫描提供PPI在药物流行病学中的实施概况。方法：环境扫描结合系统评价和专家访谈。从2010年1月1日至2023年6月30日，在MEDLINE、EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆进行了一项系统综述，以确定提到ppi的PE研究。另一项综述通过类似的方法涵盖了2019年1月1日至2023年6月30日期间《英国医学杂志》（BMJ）的原创文章。与此同时，对法国体育研究团队进行了一项横断面研究，采用标准化问卷，包括通过视频会议进行访谈。结果：共筛选文献3615篇，其中筛选出232篇进行全文筛选。然而，没有研究报道在PE研究中使用PPIs。额外的BMJ综述确定了1058篇参考文献，其中74篇符合全文选择标准，8篇被纳入。在接受调查的13个法国PE研究团队中，有3个之前有过PPI经验，12个肯定了PPI与PE的相关性。受访者指出了PE的复杂性等障碍（n = 9）。他们建议对患者进行培训（n = 9），并与专科团队合作（n = 5）以促进PPI。结论：我们的环境扫描强调了PPIs在PE研究中的出现和相关性，尽管它们仍然不常见。需要工具来培养和协助体育研究人员参与PPIs。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 医学-药学

CiteScore

4.80

自引率

7.70%

发文量

173

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： The aim of Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety is to provide an international forum for the communication and evaluation of data, methods and opinion in the discipline of pharmacoepidemiology. The Journal publishes peer-reviewed reports of original research, invited reviews and a variety of guest editorials and commentaries embracing scientific, medical, statistical, legal and economic aspects of pharmacoepidemiology and post-marketing surveillance of drug safety. Appropriate material in these categories may also be considered for publication as a Brief Report. Particular areas of interest include: design, analysis, results, and interpretation of studies looking at the benefit or safety of specific pharmaceuticals, biologics, or medical devices, including studies in pharmacovigilance, postmarketing surveillance, pharmacoeconomics, patient safety, molecular pharmacoepidemiology, or any other study within the broad field of pharmacoepidemiology; comparative effectiveness research relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics, and medical devices. Comparative effectiveness research is the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition, as these methods are truly used in the real world; methodologic contributions of relevance to pharmacoepidemiology, whether original contributions, reviews of existing methods, or tutorials for how to apply the methods of pharmacoepidemiology; assessments of harm versus benefit in drug therapy; patterns of drug utilization; relationships between pharmacoepidemiology and the formulation and interpretation of regulatory guidelines; evaluations of risk management plans and programmes relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics and medical devices.