Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39506875›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2024

Embedding patient engagement in the R&D process of a life sciences company through co-creation with a patient expert R&D board: a case study.

Estelle Jobson, Marta Garcia, Danika Sharek, Laura Risueño, Sylvain Arnould, Aude Lemoine-André, Jan Geissler, Ana Amariutei, Sabrina Grigolo, Begonya Nafria Escalera and 4 more

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Estelle JobsonEUPATI Fellow, Nyon, Switzerland. estelle.jobson@gmail.com.
Marta GarciaInstitut de Recherches Internationales Servier IRIS, Madrid, Spain. marta.garcia@servier.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6385-3372
Danika SharekPatvocates, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4610-5804
Laura RisueñoInstitut de Recherches Internationales Servier IRIS, Madrid, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9470-4364
Sylvain ArnouldInstitut de Recherches Internationales Servier IRIS, Paris, France.
Aude Lemoine-AndréInstitut de Recherches Internationales Servier IRIS, Paris, France.
Jan GeisslerPatvocates, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9058-5097
Ana AmariuteiEUPATI Fellow, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5803-1166
Sabrina GrigoloEUPATI Fellow, Trofarello, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6653-6463
Begonya Nafria EscaleraInstitut de Recerca Sant Joan de Déu, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4494-3663
Thomas SmithEUPATI Fellow, Marske, UK.
Oriana SousaEUPATI Fellow, Leiria, Portugal.
Linda StoneSjögren's UK (Previously British Sjögren's Syndrome Association), Birmingham, UK.
Janet WestIndependent Patient Expert, Hampshire, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient involvement is crucial in healthcare, a factor increasingly recognised by life sciences companies and research institutes. This article presents a case study on Servier, a life sciences company that founded a patient expert board, ahead of launching a new research and development (R&D) institute. The aim was to foster a patient-centric culture within the company. The case study explores key developments in patient and public involvement, emphasising a shift from paternalistic to patient-centred approaches, noting few available case studies on patient board collaborations in life sciences. It outlines the evolution of the board, its impact, and practical lessons learned, with related recommendations. The patient board resulted from a three-way collaboration between the company, Patvocates (a patient consultancy), and patient experts recruited. The patient consultancy played a crucial role in project management, governance, and facilitating relationships. The case study provides the context, timeframe, foundations laid, engagement of patient experts, and foundational values, including: co-creation, fair market value remuneration, voluntary participation, and patient-centric meeting protocol. Eighteen patient experts, representing ten disease areas and ten European countries, joined the board and helped prioritise and co-create projects. Ideas for activities were sourced from brainstorming sessions and an in-company challenge. The collaboration yielded five core ideas, each forming a working group. The study describes the groups and their outputs: a patient advisory council, an interactive gallery of patient experience in R&D, patient engagement and entrepreneurship in life sciences, creating patient-focused decentralised trials (DCTs), and staff training on patient engagement. The article emphasises how the organic evolution of the collaboration led to significant insights. Hurdles faced by the company included: upstream planning, cross-company buy-in, compliance, and internal resource allocation. Recommendations for the wider community included: identifying and contracting patient partners; clarifying roles; managing expectations; building trust; logistics; and sustainability. This case study presents a practical, positive example of patient engagement within a life sciences company, offering insights into the establishing, running, and the impact of collaborating with a patient expert board. Lessons learned and recommendations may serve as a model for other companies seeking to engage with patients and evolve towards a more patient-centric approach in their strategies.

Identifiers

PMID39506875
PMCPMC11539748

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.