IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v122y2018i12p1287-1294.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The POWER-tool: Recommendations for involving patient representatives in choosing relevant outcome measures during rare disease clinical trial design

Author

Listed:
  • Gaasterland, C.M.W.
  • Jansen-van der Weide, M.C.
  • Vroom, E.
  • Leeson-Beevers, K.
  • Kaatee, M.
  • Kaczmarek, R.
  • Bartels, B.
  • van der Pol, W.L.
  • Roes, K.C.B.
  • van der Lee, J.H.

Abstract

In clinical trials, it is relevant to ask patients and/or their caregivers which aspects concerning their disease they consider important to measure when a new intervention is being investigated. Those aspects, useful as outcome measures in a trial, are of pivotal importance for the result of the trial and the subsequent decision-making. In rare diseases the choice of outcome measures may be even more important, due to the small numbers and heterogeneity of the patients that are included.

Suggested Citation

  • Gaasterland, C.M.W. & Jansen-van der Weide, M.C. & Vroom, E. & Leeson-Beevers, K. & Kaatee, M. & Kaczmarek, R. & Bartels, B. & van der Pol, W.L. & Roes, K.C.B. & van der Lee, J.H., 2018. "The POWER-tool: Recommendations for involving patient representatives in choosing relevant outcome measures during rare disease clinical trial design," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(12), pages 1287-1294.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:122:y:2018:i:12:p:1287-1294
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.09.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851018305001
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.09.011?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elberse, Janneke Elisabeth & Pittens, Carina Anna Cornelia Maria & de Cock Buning, Tjard & Broerse, Jacqueline Elisabeth Willy, 2012. "Patient involvement in a scientific advisory process: Setting the research agenda for medical products," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 231-242.
    2. Boote, Jonathan & Baird, Wendy & Beecroft, Claire, 2010. "Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: A narrative review of case examples," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 10-23, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ailian Zhang & Mengmeng Pan, 2020. "“Smart Process” of Medical Innovation: The Synergism Based on Network and Physical Space," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-17, May.
    2. Anand Chand & Suwastika Naidu, 2017. "Health Care Service Quality and Availability of Skilled Health Workforce: A Panel Data Modelling of the UK, USA and Israel," Modern Applied Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(10), pages 152-152, October.
    3. Bullinger, Angelika C. & Rass, Matthias & Adamczyk, Sabrina & Moeslein, Kathrin M. & Sohn, Stefan, 2012. "Open innovation in health care: Analysis of an open health platform," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 165-175.
    4. Parkes, Jacqueline H. & Pyer, Michelle & Wray, Paula & Taylor, Jane, 2014. "Partners in projects: Preparing for public involvement in health and social care research," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 399-408.
    5. Imke Schilling & Ansgar Gerhardus, 2017. "Methods for Involving Older People in Health Research—A Review of the Literature," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-20, November.
    6. Modigh, Anton & Sampaio, Filipa & Moberg, Linda & Fredriksson, Mio, 2021. "The impact of patient and public involvement in health research versus healthcare: A scoping review of reviews," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(9), pages 1208-1221.
    7. Kathryn Oliver & Warren Pearce, 2017. "Three lessons from evidence-based medicine and policy: increase transparency, balance inputs and understand power," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-7, December.
    8. Erdem, Seda & Campbell, Danny & Thompson, Carl, 2014. "Elimination and selection by aspects in health choice experiments: Prioritising health service innovations," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 10-22.
    9. Westerink, Henrike J. & Oirbans, Tom & Garvelink, Mirjam M. & van Uden-Kraan, Cornelia F. & Zouitni, Ouisam & Bart, Hans A.J. & van der Wees, Philip J. & van der Nat, Paul B., 2023. "Barriers and facilitators of meaningful patient participation at the collective level in healthcare organizations: A systematic review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    10. Julia Keenan & Fiona Poland & Jonathan Boote & Amanda Howe & Helena Wythe & Anna Varley & Penny Vicary & Lisa Irvine & Amander Wellings, 2019. "‘We’re passengers sailing in the same ship, but we have our own berths to sleep in’: Evaluating patient and public involvement within a regional research programme: An action research project informed," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-28, May.
    11. Jonas Lander & Tobias Hainz & Irene Hirschberg & Daniel Strech, 2014. "Current Practice of Public Involvement Activities in Biomedical Research and Innovation: A Systematic Qualitative Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-17, December.
    12. Boote, Jonathan & Baird, Wendy & Sutton, Anthea, 2011. "Public involvement in the systematic review process in health and social care: A narrative review of case examples," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 105-116.
    13. Elizabeth Manafò & Lisa Petermann & Virginia Vandall-Walker & Ping Mason-Lai, 2018. "Patient and public engagement in priority setting: A systematic rapid review of the literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-18, March.
    14. Erdem, Seda & Campbell, Danny & Thompson, Carl, 2014. "Addressing elimination and selection by aspects decision rules in discrete choice experiments: does it matter?," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 169839, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:122:y:2018:i:12:p:1287-1294. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.