Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40210822›Full record

ReviewTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2025

Patient Engagement and Patient Experience Data in Regulatory Review and Health Technology Assessment: Where Are We Today?

Neil Bertelsen, Elisabeth Oehrlein, Bronwyn Lewis, Tiffany Westrich-Robertson, Jim Elliott, Tom Willgoss, Nidhi Swarup, Ify Sargeant, Oishika Panda, Maria M Marano and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

12 authors.

Neil BertelsenHTAi Patient & Citizen Involvement in HTA Interest Group and Neil Bertelsen Consulting, Berlin, Germany.
Elisabeth OehrleinApplied Patient Experience, Washington, DC, USA.
Bronwyn LewisPatient Engagement, Boehringer Ingelheim, Frankfurt, Germany.
Tiffany Westrich-RobertsonAiArthritis (International Foundation for Autoimmune & Autoinflammatory Arthritis), St Louis, MO, USA.
Jim ElliottIndependent Expert, Dinas Cross, Wales, UK.
Tom WillgossRoche Products Ltd, Welwyn Garden City, UK.
Nidhi SwarupAlliance of Patients' Organizations Singapore Ltd and Consumer Engagement & Education Panel, Agency for Care Effectiveness, Ministry of Health, Singapore, Republic of Singapore.
Ify SargeantTwist Medical, Burlingame, CA, USA.
Oishika PandaTwist Medical, Burlingame, CA, USA.
Maria M MaranoPatient Focused Medicines Development, Brussels, Belgium.
Hayley ChapmanPatient Focused Medicines Development, Brussels, Belgium. hayley@thesynergist.org.
Nicholas BrookePatient Focused Medicines Development, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs healthcare stakeholders aim to support patient-centered care, patients play an increasingly important role in pharmaceutical and medical technology development and healthcare decision-making. Patient engagement (PE), patient experience data (PED), and meaningful integration of PE to enrich PED have been evolving rapidly. This landscape review focuses on emerging PE/PED practices and guidelines in 2023.

methodsReferences published between January-December 2023 on the use of PE and PED from health technology assessment (HTA) and regulatory bodies in different countries, three peer-reviewed journals, and referred resources from collaborators were analyzed. These references were compared with those in our previous publication (August 2021-January 2023, 17-month period).

resultsOverall, 28 references from HTA/regulatory bodies, 26 from peer-reviewed articles, and 17 referred resources were identified. Eight references on PE and PED integration (PE + PED) were identified in 2023 from HTA/regulatory bodies, compared with none in the previous 17-month analysis. Emerging trends on the role of PE, PED, and real-world evidence in HTA/regulatory deliberations, transparency and geographic variations in the use of such evidence and practices, and gaps thereof have been highlighted.

conclusionsThe increase in PE, PED, and PE + PED references worldwide in 2023 versus the prior 17-month analysis suggests accelerated adoption of PE + PED practices. However, a need remains for comprehensive, actionable guidance on best practices for use of PE and PED for harmonization and incorporation into HTA/regulatory processes. Patient input-essential for evidence-based decision-making-provides valuable insights that enhance care quality, treatment relevance and effectiveness, and builds trust and sustainability.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalHumansPatient-Centered CareHealth technology assessmentPatient engagementPatient experience dataReal-world evidenceRegulatory assessment

Identifiers

PMID40210822
PMCPMC12181203

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.