Abstract
Background
Stakeholders increasingly expect research and care delivery to be guided by and to optimize patient experiences. However, standardized tools to engage patients to gather high-quality data about their experiences, priorities, and desired outcomes are not publicly available. The objective of this study was to develop and test a Toolbox with a disease-agnostic interview guide template and accompanying resources to assist researchers in engaging patients living with chronic disease in a dialogue about their experiences.
Methods
Guided by a multidisciplinary workgroup, a targeted literature review (PubMed) was conducted, followed by group discussions to identify/thematically organize patient experience concepts, development of a conceptual model, and drafting of an interview guide template and patient-facing visual. Materials were tested/refined via cognitive (n = 5) and pilot (n = 30) interviews conducted virtually with US patients diagnosed with chronic/potentially disabling conditions from December 2020 to April 2021. Patient-facing tools were reviewed by health literacy experts for applicability/accessibility. English-speaking adults who self-reported receiving a chronic condition diagnosis at least 6 months prior participated in a 60–90 min interview.
Results
Patient experience concepts were organized thematically under three domains: (1) life before a diagnosis, (2) experiences getting a diagnosis, and (3) experiences living with a diagnosis. A plain language consent sheet template, interview guide template, and patient experience conceptual model were developed and revised based on input from interviewees, interviewers, and the workgroup.
Conclusions
A disease-agnostic patient-engagement Toolbox was developed and tested to capture patient experience data. These materials can be customized based on study objectives and leveraged by various stakeholders to identify opportunities to enhance the patient centricity of healthcare delivery and research.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
A “Patient Experience Mapping Toolbox,” which includes a disease-agnostic interview guide template and accompanying resources has been developed and tested among people with chronic disease. The Toolbox can assist researchers in engaging patients living with chronic disease in a dialogue about their experiences. |
Development of the Toolbox was led by the patient community using an iterative process, thus it is likely to account for some of the important, often overlooked, nonclinical aspects of the patient journey (e.g., social determinants of health, sources of information, challenges of misdiagnosis). |
Applying these tools reduces the need to develop disease- or study-specific interview guides, increasing efficiency for researchers. In the future, the Toolbox will be updated to close gaps identified by researchers applying the Toolbox. |
1 Background
Engaging patients in a dialogue about their experiences inside and outside the healthcare system often reveals unmet needs, reasons for nonadherence to care plans, or identifies other barriers (or facilitators) to timely, patient-centered care [1]. Patients and other healthcare stakeholders, including regulators, health technology assessment bodies, and research funding bodies, increasingly expect research and care delivery to be guided by and optimize patient experiences [2,3,4].
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defines patient experience data (PED) broadly as the experiences, perspectives, needs, and priorities of patients related to signs and symptoms that affect day-to-day functioning and quality of life, course of disease over time, treatment experiences, and views on potential tradeoffs between disease outcomes and treatments [5]. PED can be collected using qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods [6]. Qualitative research methods (e.g., interviews, focus groups), for example, are used to “obtain a deeper understanding of the patient experience” [6] to guide research and healthcare decision-making.
In 2013, the FDA began conducting disease-specific “Patient-Focused Drug Development” (PFDD) meetings and producing corresponding “Voice of the Patient” (VoP) summary reports. PFDD meetings capture patients’ “perspectives on their condition and available therapies to treat their condition” through discussion questions that are standardized across diseases. PFDD meetings have clarified to many stakeholders, especially regulators, that “patients are experts in what is it like to live with their disease or condition and use of available treatments.” However, the purpose of PFDD meetings is not to capture comprehensive PED in a scientifically rigorous manner. Data collection is limited to polls, public testimony, and occasionally premeeting surveys [7]. As a result, while PED collected through PFDD meetings is compelling and informative for hypothesis generation, decision-makers are likely to question the extent to which data are representative of target patient populations’ experiences and perspectives.
There is broad agreement that patient engagement (i.e., qualitative research among patients) should be transparent, include patients that are representative of target patient populations, and be conducted in a timely manner so PED are available to guide decisions [5, 8, 9]. Numerous academic resources about developing and reporting scientifically rigorous qualitative research are available [10,11,12]. Tools to evaluate and communicate patient engagement approaches have also been published online and in the peer-reviewed literature [8, 9, 13]. Most are disease specific and thus more limited for use and purpose.
To encourage the collection of patient-reported outcomes data on pain, fatigue, physical functioning, emotional distress, and social role participation, the National Institutes of Health invested in the development of a publicly available resource, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) [14]. However, no similar initiative to encourage the collection of qualitative data has been funded to date. For example, while the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) requires researchers to engage patients in funded projects and provides an engagement rubric, and researcher training, PCORI does not provide researchers with resources to engage and document patient experiences [9].
Nonproprietary, disease-agnostics tools, such as an inventory of interview questions, to conduct scientifically rigorous qualitative research with patients about their experiences living with a chronic disease(s) are not readily available. In the absence of standardized interview guide templates, researchers develop interview guides de novo, leading to inefficient and inconsistent data collection, and impeding comparisons across studies [15]. Thus, the objective of this study was to develop a user-friendly Patient Experience Mapping Toolbox (Toolbox, from here on) with a disease-agnostic interview guide template and accompanying resources to assist researchers in engaging chronic-disease patients in a dialogue about their experiences in and outside the healthcare system. This manuscript describes the approach to Toolbox development and initial testing to ensure relevance and applicability to a wide range of chronic conditions and demographic characteristics.
2 Methods
2.1 Study Organization and Oversight
This study received an exempt determination from Advarra’s Institutional Review Board (#00045816). An 18-member multidisciplinary workgroup, including patients, patient advocates, and patient engagement experts (employed by nonprofits, life science companies, and patient groups), guided all phases. Members of the workgroup are listed in the acknowledgements. The primary study outcome was developing a publicly available Toolbox for engaging individuals with chronic disease. The workgroup informed that the Toolbox should include a comprehensive interview guide that could be tailored based on the depth needed and study objective, a patient experience conceptual model (“visual”) to be used in tandem with the interview guide, a plain language consent form, and Toolbox-user training materials. Figure 1 shows an overview of development of the Toolbox. It included a targeted literature review to identify patient experience concepts, development of draft materials, cognitive interviews, and pilot interviews. Study methods and results are reported in alignment with the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative research (COREQ) checklist for qualitative research.[10].
2.2 Development of the Draft Patient Experience Mapping Toolbox
2.2.1 Identifying and Organizing Patient Experience Concepts
Patient experience concepts were identified and described in published patient journey maps, frameworks, or conceptual models through a targeted literature search (PubMed), searching websites of patient group members of the National Health Council and workgroup discussion. The targeted literature search included peer-reviewed and gray literature, as well as patient group websites to identify existing patient experience conceptual models and patient journey maps. All searches were conducted in May–June 2019. Since this was not a systematic literature review, only one researcher initially reviewed titles and full-text articles. The eligible articles were saved in a shared folder and extraction of concepts was conducted as a group. We extracted existing journey maps or patient-centered conceptual models (illustrative examples to guide the development of the Toolbox conceptual model), terminology used to describe patients’ journeys, and headers/subheaders used in journey maps or conceptual models to identify topics.
Patient experience concepts were extracted and discussed during a workshop among workgroup members in September 2019 (see Supplementary Materials 1 and 2). During the workshop, workgroup members considered a variety of questions, including the following: What concepts must be included? How do we expect the patient journeys to change within the next few years? What ideas can we take from prior maps? What important pieces are missing from current maps? The workgroup added to and organized the concepts through group discussions and originally classified the concepts into two categories: journey to diagnosis and journey with illness after diagnosis (see Supplementary Material 3).
Following further workgroup discussion in October 2019, the categories were refined to (1) life before a diagnosis, (2) experiences getting a diagnosis, and (3) experiences living with a diagnosis. These categories served as the basis for the conceptual model and the draft interview guide. Of note, during one of the workshops, patient workgroup members questioned the use of the term “patient journey,” which is a term commonly used in market research and might imply a linear journey from point A to point B. To reflect complexity of diagnostic and healthcare “odyssey’s” patient workgroup members preferred “patient experience.” Thus, the project was renamed the “Patient Experience Mapping Toolbox” instead of the original title “Patient Journey Mapping Toolbox.”
An interview guide template and consent sheet template were drafted based on an earlier qualitative study about atrial fibrillation patient experiences, Patient-Focused Drug Development (PFDD) questions, and de novo [16, 17]. All draft materials were first reviewed by workgroup members. Next, an external health literacy consultancy was contracted to review all patient-facing tools (conceptual model, consent sheet, interview guide) to align with health literacy principles [18]. The health literacy consultancy also designed a patient-friendly version of the conceptual model.
2.3 Testing and Refining the Patient Experience Mapping Toolbox
The research team conducted 90 min cognitive interviews (n = 5) to improve the conceptual model and 75 min pilot interviews (n = 30) to expand upon the interview guide template iteratively between December 2020 and April 2021. Interview participants were recruited by a market research vendor and included adults (age of majority in their state), with a self-reported chronic-condition diagnosis at least 6 months prior, could participate in a 60–90 min interview, and could read and communicate in English (see Supplementary Information 4 for complete eligibility criteria). We used the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) list of chronic diseases to determine whether a chronic condition was “eligible to participate” [19]. Participants were purposefully sampled to ensure diversity and recruited from physician (40%) and patient (60%) panels.
Participants received an information/consent sheet before the interview (Supplementary Information 5). Researchers with qualitative interview experience [Cognitive interviews (TRL, MPH, female), pilot interviewers (EO/Ph.D.; LG/Ph.D.; KM/PharmD; and SS/B.A.; all females; RC/PharmD/male)] conducted the interviews. Interviews were audio recorded, anonymized, and transcribed.
We solicited feedback from participants to refine the tools using two different approaches. We conducted cognitive debriefing interviews for the “Map My Experience” visual aid (see Supplementary Materials for the Interview Guide). To refine the interview guide and consent documents, we asked participants for feedback as part of the interviews. These interview questions are listed in the “Feedback on Tools” section of the interview guide template (see Supplementary Materials). The project team met regularly to discuss additions or modifications needed to improve usability, breadth, and depth of the data collection tools. Specifically, before starting interviews, we determined to modify the interview guide during the cognitive interviews and following each interview. Edits were discussed with the workgroup after cognitive interviews, after the first 10, 20, and 30 pilot interviews.
Transcripts were not returned to participants for comment or correction. Interviewers provided suggestions for enhancing (i.e., adding new interview questions or sections) the interview guide based on their notes following each interview. All participants were compensated in alignment with the patient engagement fair-market value calculator [20].
3 Results
The targeted literature search intended to identify patient experience concepts to discuss with the workgroup and ultimately form the basis of an interview guide and conceptual model. The PubMed search initially identified 3178 articles. After deduplicating, titles and abstracts were screened by a single reviewer and 68 articles were determined to be eligible and were included in the qualitative synthesis. The identified literature primarily focused on patient journeys within specific conditions including prostate cancer, diabetes, rosacea, hearing impairments, and rheumatoid arthritis. Our search yielded 40 patient experience concepts, such as seeking care for symptoms, misdiagnosis, and finding a support system (see Supplementary Information 1). The concepts included many concepts related to disease or symptom onset (e.g., no noticeable symptoms, start experiencing symptoms), health system experiences and pathways (e.g., referral to/finding specialists, switching doctor to find “right fit”), and treatment-related experiences (e.g., treatment side effects, unnecessary treatment due to misdiagnosis). Several maps also described impacts on day-to-day life (e.g., effects on activities of daily life, effects on social life).
The concepts were organized into three categories during group discussions: (1) life before getting a diagnosis, (2) getting a diagnosis, and 83) living with a diagnosis. The conceptual model and interview guide template align with these categories.
3.1 Participants
Forty-one participants were screened to identify the final sample of 35 participants. No invitees refused; however, some were nonresponsive (n = 4) to follow-up or did not appear for the interview (n = 2). All participants completed the interview virtually at home. Interviewee demographic characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Supplementary Information 6 lists the complete distribution of chronic diseases across interviewed participants. Since the objective was to test the draft tools among a broad range of individuals with very different patient experiences, we sought to recruit individuals with different diagnoses, ages, ethnicities, and lifestyle factors. Examples of chronic disease diagnoses among interviewed individuals include sickle cell disease, multiple sclerosis, and hereditary amyloidosis.
Changes to the model included additional symbols for clarity (e.g., add pharmacy, clinic, and hospital). Most modifications occurred during the cognitive interviews or the first 20 pilot interviews. Modifications included defining and expanding upon life-impacting factors and adding personal health goals, diagnosis at birth, systemic bias, and care coordination/multiple chronic conditions.
3.2 “Map My Experience” Conceptual Model
The “map my experience” conceptual model of patients' experiences with a chronic disease was developed to engage patients, rather than visually depict a summary of patient experiences with a specific disease. The “map my experience” conceptual model is a visual to guide patient participants through the interview (see Fig. 2). It is organized as winding roads and bridges connecting three islands, one for each domain. It includes cues and text related to the healthcare system, social determinants of health, and healthcare costs. It is not intended and was not tested as a standalone solution, but rather as a tool used in tandem with the interview guide (see Fig. 3). The pathways begin the starting points to account for asymptomatic diseases and symptomatic diseases: “I or someone close to me noticed something was different or I didn’t feel right” or “A healthcare provider found a problem.”
To ensure the map is a clear and useful tool for participants, we conducted (1) cognitive debrief interviews of the map and (2) asked participants for their feedback of the map during patient interviews. Table 2 provides sample feedback received during both stages of interviews.
Island 1 “life before getting a diagnosis” provides visual cues related to symptom onset, lifestyle changes, information gathering, and other experiences before entering the health system to seek a formal diagnosis. Island 2 explores patient experiences getting a diagnosis, including clinic visits and testing. The third island explores patient experiences living with and treating a chronic disease or disability, including different treatments that were tried, side effects, misdiagnoses, and desired outcomes. The straight pathway represents clear trajectories through each of the islands, whereas the winding pathway represents potential setbacks, misdiagnosis, trying different treatments, and other potential patient experiences. In addition, the conceptual model includes an illustrated list of “life factors” intended to capture any social, economic, and health-related burden that may impact or modify patient experiences across the care continuum. Life factors include the presence or absence of a family and support system, work or student life, housing and access to transportation, healthcare, insurance and access to care, mental health and other health conditions, finances, and other costs.
3.3 Interview Guide Template
In addition to upfront language introducing the study objective, seeking verbal consent, and introducing the conceptual model, the interview guide template is organized around the following headers: “Ask about their experiences before getting a diagnosis,” “Ask about their experiences getting a diagnosis,” and “Ask about their experiences living with a diagnosis.” Example topics include symptoms/change over time, emotional health and personal goals, and treatment and health system experiences. To understand the interplay between people’s experience with a disease or disability and the “life factors,” consideration for how life factors (e.g., family, finances) are impacted by the disease/disability and how disease/disability impacts life factors, they are probed throughout the interview guide template. The sample introductory language can be modified based on the researcher’s study objective, funding source, and disclosure requirements. To encourage standardization across studies, the interview guide includes bolded introductory text and questions, with unbolded “probe” questions. All bolded questions were tested across interviews (depending on relevance to chronic disease or disability), while unbolded “probe” questions were tested in multiple interviews.
Researchers can download a Microsoft Word version of the interview guide template and select which questions, probes, etc., to include based on their research objective and patient population (see Supplementary Materials). The breadth of sample interview questions is intended to support researchers with a wide range of study objectives. For example, questions about ideal treatment and clinical trial experiences could be used as part of patient-focused drug development efforts, while researchers interested in exploring healthcare inequities could include questions such as “Did you feel you were treated differently because of your race, age, or gender?” or “Did you have any positive or negative experiences you would like healthcare providers and researchers to know about? This could be anything to do with your condition such as an experience with symptoms, medication, healthcare providers, stigma or bias, etc.”
3.4 Consent Sheet Template and Other Resources
The Toolbox includes a plain language consent sheet template for researchers seeking verbal consent. The template can be downloaded as an editable document in Microsoft Word and tailored based on study characteristics and objectives. To assist researchers in applying the tools, the NHC team developed an introductory video, a project-coordinator guide, and an interviewer training guide, which are available on a Toolbox website (see Table 3) [21]. The guides cover practical topics, including compensating participants, interview mode, and ethics review. Additionally, while the Toolbox is available to the public, to encourage consistency across studies and continual improvement, individuals accessing the Toolbox must make a free account, “Describe how you will use the Patient Experience Mapping Toolbox” and “agree to provide feedback on the toolbox within 90 days of study/project completion, including modification to the interview guide questions and/or additions.”
4 Discussion
To assist researchers in applying a systematic, consistent approach to engage patients living with chronic diseases holistically about their experiences, a Toolbox comprising a plain language consent sheet template, interview guide template, and patient experience conceptual model, was developed and pilot tested. The Toolbox facilitates an understanding of patient experience (1) before a diagnosis, (2) getting a diagnosis and (3) living with a diagnosis. All data collection tools were developed iteratively based on feedback from individuals living with chronic diseases, health literacy experts, and a multidisciplinary workgroup.
The Toolbox version 1.0 is an important step in helping researchers to develop conceptual models or “patient journey” maps reflecting multidimensional patient and family experiences. This is an important advance over traditional approaches that often depict linear, healthcare experiences and may not have been developed by engaging patients.
The Toolbox is intended to complement other initiatives and resources. For example, one mechanism that many patient groups have used to collect patient experience data is hosting externally led patient-focused drug development meetings. Data for PFDD meetings are often collected through online polling and in-person discussions. While Voice of the Patient reports summarizing PFDD meetings contains extremely useful insights, the way data are collected may not be rigorous enough for certain decisions (e.g., regulatory decisions). Specifically, since the meetings are not “research” per se, key information is often missing (e.g., participant demographic or clinical information, representativeness of emerging themes). To overcome this challenge, we have included the PFDD questions in the interview guide template. For patient groups who have already completed a PFDD meeting, these questions could be included in interviews to confirm findings from PFDD meetings. For patient groups that have not conducted a PFDD meeting, including the PFDD meeting questions makes it easy to collect patient experience data on topics FDA has denoted as important (e.g., characteristics of an ideal treatment). In parallel, interview questions about disease burden, financial impacts of disease, and treatment experience can help patient groups be responsive to questions that health technology assessment (HTA) bodies have about patients’ lived experiences [22, 23].
Expected uses include as a data source to augment clinical trial and compliance data (e.g., explaining reasons for nonadherence) for treatment development strategy and approval, and to inform future research. Unlike proprietary patient experience/journey mapping tools, the Toolbox is publicly available, allowing researchers at different institutions to collect comparable data, facilitating comparisons across studies [21]. Academic researchers can apply the tools to engage patients meaningfully as PCORI requires for all funded projects [24]. The biopharmaceutical industry can leverage the Toolbox to collect high-quality PED to inform medical product development per the FDA’s recommendations [25]. For example, the Toolbox has been cited as a useful tool to collect patient experience data as part of patient-focused drug development efforts [26]. A recent publication highlights how information on patient experiences and priorities gathered using the Toolbox can guide real-world study designs [27].
Applying the Toolbox may enhance the quality and efficiency of patient engagement research. The data collection tools were developed to capture the multidimensionality of patients’ experiences, including the impact of lived support systems, beliefs, and social determinants of health that may influence access to care, treatment preferences, and ultimately outcomes [28,29,30,31]. The Toolbox is intended to capture data on the interplay between comorbidities, including interactions between treatments, coordination of care, and the impact on mental health [32, 33]. The objective of conducting pilot interviews among individuals diverse in terms of disease or disability, demographic, and clinical characteristics was to ensure applicability to a wide range of circumstances. For example, the interview guide includes a specific starting point for individuals diagnosed at birth or in vitro. The probes are intended for a wide range of ages and include prompts appropriate for individuals currently in school, individuals who work, and those who do not work.
Additionally, the Toolbox includes a range of questions about where patients seek information and evaluate the trustworthiness of information about health. A better understanding of patients’ information-seeking behaviors can inform dissemination efforts, promoting the spread of trustworthy information, and enabling partnering with patient support and advocacy groups.
Resources in the Toolbox may also support a range of uses outside patient engagement research. For example, pilot interview participants stated that they were interested in using the model for nonresearch purposes, including for patient support groups and in clinical care for providers to help set patients’ expectations upon diagnosis. Since releasing the Toolbox publicly, stakeholders have sought guidance concerning adapting the consent form for other research projects, utilizing specific questions from the interview guide for patient testimonials, and using the conceptual model to educate elementary school students about the health system.
The Toolbox will be updated in the future based on feedback from research teams using it. An immediate next step is to help researchers collect data that is more representative of patient experiences in the USA, the Toolbox should be culturally and linguistically adapted to allow implementation among diverse populations. Best practices published by the ISOQOL Translation and Cultural Adaptation Special Interest Group and the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation could be informative to translating and culturally adapting all patient-facing materials [34, 35].
4.1 Limitations
Our approach to developing the Toolbox has several strengths: development was led by an umbrella patient advocacy organization and guided by multidisciplinary input, and the questions have all been pilot tested and refined based on input from individuals with a range of different chronic conditions and life experiences. All patient-facing tools were externally reviewed by health literacy experts.
There may be chronic diseases for which the data collection tools are not entirely applicable, and modifications may be required. For example, applicability to acute conditions has not been tested. Information reported by patients may be prone to recall bias. However, there is no expectation this would impact the tools' quality. Additionally, the Toolbox has only been tested in a research context, and its’ use in clinical settings is currently unknown. Finally, the Toolbox was pilot tested among English speakers with internet access. Future research could include adaptation for acute diagnoses, and language or cultural adaptation. Additionally, the targeted literature review provided a starting point in identifying patient experience concepts; however, it was not a systematic review and only one reviewer screened articles for relevance. It is possible concepts were not identified; however, the iterative approach to improving the interview guide combined with discussions with workgroup members likely filled many gaps.
5 Conclusions
A toolkit was developed and tested to assist researchers in systematically gathering data about patient experiences. The Toolbox can be easily customized based on the study objective. These publicly available resources can be used to gather informative data on the experiences of individuals diagnosed with a chronic/potentially disabling condition. Since these tools were created with patients using an iterative process, they are likely to account for some of the important, often overlooked, nonclinical aspects of the patient experience (e.g., social determinants of health, sources of information, challenges of misdiagnosis). Applying these tools reduces the need to develop disease- or study-specific interview guides, increasing efficiency for researchers. Various stakeholders can leverage these resources to identify opportunities to enhance patient centricity in healthcare delivery, patient-centered outcomes research, and patient-focused drug development. The Toolbox should help to standardize the capture of patient experience data in a user-friendly, relevant way. In the future, the Toolbox will be updated to close gaps identified by researchers applying the Toolbox.
References
Harrington RL, Hanna ML, Oehrlein EM, Camp R, Wheeler R, Cooblall C, et al. Defining patient engagement in research: results of a systematic review and analysis: report of the ISPOR Patient-Centered Special Interest Group. Value Health [Internet]. 2020. https://www.valueinhealthjournal.com/article/S1098-3015(20)30141-8/abstract. Accessed 2 June 2020.
Frank L, Basch E, Selby JV, Institute F the P-COR. The PCORI perspective on patient-centered outcomes research. JAMA. 2014;312:1513–4.
Facey K, Hansen HP, Single A, editors. Patient Involvement in Health Technology Assessment [Internet]. ADIS; 2017. Available from: https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811040672. Accessed 29 May 2019.
ICH Reflection Paper: Proposed ICH Guidelines Work to Advance Patient Focused Drug Development [Internet]. International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). 2020 Nov. https://admin.ich.org/sites/default/files/2020-12/ICH_ReflectionPaper_PFDD_Endorsed-ForConsultation_2020_1118.pdf. Accessed 18 Sept 2023.
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Patient-Focused Drug Development: Collecting Comprehensive and Representative Input [Internet]. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA; 2021. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/patient-focused-drug-development-collecting-comprehensive-and-representative-input. Accessed 9 Aug 2021.
Food and Drug Administration. Patient-Focused Drug Development: Methods to Identify What Is Important to Patients Guidance for Industry, Food and Drug Administration Staff, and Other Stakeholders: Draft Guidance [Internet]. White Oak, MD: Food and Drug Administration; 2019 Sep p. 49. https://www.fda.gov/media/131230/download. Accessed 18 Sept 2023.
Chalasani M, Vaidya P, Mullin T. Enhancing the incorporation of the patient’s voice in drug development and evaluation. Res Involv Engagem [Internet]. 2018. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5879806/. Accessed 7 Oct 2019.
Perfetto EM, Oehrlein EM, Schoch S, Love TR. The National Health Council Rubric to Capture the Patient Voice: A Guide to Incorporating the Patient Voice into the Health Ecosystem [Internet]. Washington DC: National Health Council; 2019 Jun. https://www.nationalhealthcouncil.org/Patient-Engagement-Rubric. Accessed 18 Sept 2023.
Sheridan S, Schrandt S, Forsythe L, Hilliard TS, Paez KA. The PCORI engagement rubric: promising practices for partnering in research. Ann Fam Med. 2017;15:165–70.
COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies)—Guidelines for Reporting Health Research: A User’s Manual—Wiley Online Library [Internet]. [cited 2021 Dec 17]. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118715598.ch21.
Lune H, Berg BL. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, Global Edition. Pearson Education Limited; 2017.
Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design [Internet]. SAGE Publications Inc. 2022. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/qualitative-inquiry-and-research-design/book246896. Accessed 11 July 2022.
Staniszewska S, Brett J, Mockford C, Barber R. The GRIPP checklist: strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:391–9.
Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N, Gershon R, Cook K, Reeve B, et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care. 2007;45:S3-11.
Chambers M, LeMaster J. Collecting and using patient experience data: caution, commitment and consistency are needed. Health Expect. 2019;22:1–2.
Oehrlein EM. Atrial Fibrillation Risk-Stratification Tools: Improving Patient Centeredness and Precision—ProQuest [Internet] [Dissertation]. [Baltimore, MD]: University of Maryland, Baltimore; 2018. https://www.proquest.com/openview/eb06321817219239704d8501c280c598/1.pdf?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y. Accessed 20 Oct 2021.
Research C for DE and. Externally-led Patient-Focused Drug Development Meetings. FDA [Internet]. 2019. http://www.fda.gov/industry/prescription-drug-user-fee-amendments/externally-led-patient-focused-drug-development-meetings. Accessed 20 Dec 2019.
Health Literacy in Healthy People 2030 | health.gov [Internet]. https://health.gov/our-work/national-health-initiatives/healthy-people/healthy-people-2030/health-literacy-healthy-people-2030. Accessed 20 Oct 2021.
Chronic Conditions | CMS [Internet]. https://www.cms.gov/data-research/statistics-trends-and-reports/chronic-conditions/chronic-conditions. Accessed 14 Sep 2023.
Tools to Support Sponsor-Patient Engagement: Fair-Market-Value Calculator and Engagement Templates [Internet]. National Health Council. 2019. https://www.nationalhealthcouncil.org/resources/fair-market-value-calculator. Accessed 3 June 2019.
Oehrlein EM, Schoch S, Majercak K, Gressler LE, Perfetto EM, Patient Experience Mapping Working Group. Patient Experience Mapping Toolbox [Internet]. National Health Council. 2021. https://nationalhealthcouncil.org/additional-resources/patient-experience-map/. Accessed 13 Dec 2021.
Share Your Story [Internet]. ICER. https://icer.org/work-with-icer/patients/share-your-story-form/. Accessed 18 Sept 2023.
Guidance for Providing Patient Input [Internet]. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH); https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/Drug_Review_Process/patient_input_guidance.pdf. Accessed 18 Sept 2023.
Basch E, Aronson N, Berg A, Flum D, Gabriel S, Goodman SN, et al. Methodological standards and patient-centeredness in comparative effectiveness research: the PCORI perspective. JAMA. 2012;307:1636–40.
Patient-Focused Drug Development Guidance Series for Enhancing the Incorporation of the Patient’s Voice in Medical Product Development and Regulatory Decision Making [Internet]. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-approval-process-drugs/fda-patient-focused-drug-development-guidance-series-enhancing-incorporation-patients-voice-medical. Accessed 27 Feb 2023.
PED: Turning the patient voice into a dataset | Reuters Events | Pharma [Internet]. https://www.reutersevents.com/pharma/patients-and-medical/ped-turning-patient-voice-dataset. Accessed 18 Sept 2023.
Oehrlein EM, Burcu M, Schoch S, Gressler LE. Enhancing patient centricity of real-world data research: an exploratory analysis using the patient experience mapping toolbox. Value Health. 2023;26:10–7.
Robinson JH, Callister LC, Berry JA, Dearing KA. Patient-centered care and adherence: definitions and applications to improve outcomes. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2008;20:600–7.
Dolan JG. Shared decision-making–transferring research into practice: the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73:418–25.
Joosten EAG, DeFuentes-Merillas L, de Weert GH, Sensky T, van der Staak CPF, de Jong CAJ. Systematic review of the effects of shared decision-making on patient satisfaction, treatment adherence and health status. Psychother Psychosom. 2008;77:219–26.
Davidson I, Gallieni M, Saxena R, Dolmatch B. A patient centered decision making dialysis access algorithm. J Vasc Access. 2007;8:59–68.
King DE, Xiang J, Pilkerton CS. Multimorbidity trends in United States Adults, 1988–2014. J Am Board Fam Med. 2018;31:503–13.
Barnett K, Mercer SW, Norbury M, Watt G, Wyke S, Guthrie B. Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: a cross-sectional study. Lancet (London, England). 2012;380:37–43.
Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, et al. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value Health. 2005;8:94–104.
McKown S, Acquadro C, Anfray C, Arnold B, Eremenco S, Giroudet C, et al. Good practices for the translation, cultural adaptation, and linguistic validation of clinician-reported outcome, observer-reported outcome, and performance outcome measures. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2020;4:89.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Omar A. Escontrías, DrPH, MPH, Senior Vice President, Equity, Research and Programs, at the National Health Council for his suggestions on this manuscript and continued contributions to advancing the Toolbox. We would also like to thank Elise Hoover, PKD Foundation, and Mark McEwen, a health advocate and stroke survivor, for their contributions during advisory board meetings. The members of National Health Council’s Patient Experience Mapping Workgroup were: Stacie Bell, PhD6; Morgan Daven, MA7; Linda S. Deal, MS8; Rachel Dungan, MSSP9; Julie Fiol, RN10; Lori Frank, PhD11; Beth Gore, PhD12; Nicole Harr BS13; Newell McElwee, PharmD, MSPH14; Christeen Moburg BBA15; Chris L. Pashos, PhD16; Roslyn F. Schneider, MD, MSc, FACP, FCCP17; Jonathan Stokes, MBA18; Jamie Zagorski, MSN, NP19. 1. National Psoriasis Foundation, 1800 Diagonal Rd., #360 Alexandria, VA 22314 (sbell@lupusresearch.org). 2. Alzheimer’s Association, 225 N. Michigan Ave. Floor 17 Chicago, IL 60601 (mdaven@alz.org). 3. Pfizer, 235 East 42nd Street New York, NY 10017 (Linda.Deal@pfizer.com). 4. AcademyHealth, 1666 K Street NW, Washington DC 20006 (rachel.dungan@academyhealth.org). 5. National Multiple Sclerosis Society, 733 Third Avenue, Third Floor, New York, NY 10017 (Julie.Fiol@nmss.org). 6. RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 (LFrank@RAND.org). 7. Oley Foundation, 99 Delaware Ave, Delmar, NY 12054 (bethgore318@yahoo.com). 8. PKD Foundation, 001 E 101st Terrace Suite 220, Kansas City MO 64131 (nicoleh@pkdcure.org). 9. Boehringer-Ingelheim, 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield, CT 06877 (Newell.McElwee@boehringer-ingelheim.com). 10. Sangamo Therapeutics, Inc., 7000 Marina Blvd, Brisbane, CA 94005 (cmoburg@sangamo.com). 11. Genesis Research, 111 River Street, Suite 1120, Hoboken, NJ 07030 (clpashos@msn.com). 12. BioMarin Pharmaceuticals Inc. 105 Digital Drive Novato, CA 94949 (Roz.Schneider@bmrn.com). 13. Abbvie, 5 Giralda Farms, Madison, NJ 07940 (jonathan.t.stokes@abbvie.com). 14. Gilead Sciences, Inc., 333 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA 94404 (Jamie.Zagorski@gilead.com)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Author contributions
EMO conceived the study. EMO, SS, KM, EP, and Workgroup Members designed the study. EMO, SS, KM, LEG, RCC, and TRL collected and analyzed data, all authors and Workgroup Members interpreted the data. EMO, LEG, and RCC drafted the manuscript. SS, KM, TRL, EP, and Workgroup Members provided substantive edits to the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Funding
Development of the Toolbox was supported by Allergan, AbbVie, Biogen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Pfizer, and Sangamo Therapeutics.
Conflict of interest
This work was supported by the National Health Council. EO is a former employee of the National Health Council (NHC) and employed by Applied Patient Experience LLC, which has contracts with a variety of nonprofit organizations, pharmaceutical companies, and academic institutions, including the NHC. SS is an employee of the National Health Council, a membership organization that receives dues and sponsorships from a variety of funders, both members and sponsors. Please see the NHC website for lists of members and sponsors (http://www.nationalhealthcouncil.org/). EP is a former employee of the NHC and also has a faculty appointment at the University of Maryland Baltimore School of Pharmacy and has received funding from the NHC, Merck, PhRMA, and the Innovation in Value Initiative. KM has no conflicts of interest to disclose. LEG has no conflicts of interest to disclose. RC is an employee of the Department of Defense. RC also has a faculty appointment the University of Maryland Baltimore Graduate School and Uniformed Services University. TRL completed an internship at the National Health Council and received consulting fees for conducting the cognitive interviews. TRL has received remuneration for completion of Voice of the Patient activities with Nephcure as a patient living with IgA Nephropathy. https://nephcure.org/getinvolved/become-a-voice-of-patient-volunteer/. SB was an employee of the National Psoriasis Foundation, a nonprofit organization representing individuals living with psoriatic disease, at the time the work was completed. MD has nothing to disclose. LSD is an employee of the pharmaceutical company Pfizer Inc. which provides funding to the NHC. RD has nothing to disclose. JF has nothing to disclose. LF was an employee of the RAND Corporation at the time the work was completed and serves on the Board of the Personalized Medicine Foundation, the International Society for Quality of Life Research, and the Medical, Scientific, and Medical Screening Advisory Board of the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America. BG is a former employee of the Association for Vascular Access, the current President of the Board of Trustees for The Oley Foundation without compensation, and she represents the patient voice in various healthcare projects without compensation. She is periodically hired by various groups to give keynote speeches on the subject of patient harm. NH and EH, employed by the PKD Foundation, have no disclosures. NM was an employee of Boehringer–Ingelheim at the time the work was completed. Boehringer-Ingelheim provides funding for NHC. NM owns stock in Merck and Pfizer (former employers). CM is employed at Sangamo Therapeutics headquartered in Brisbane, CA. CLP has received research funding from Genesis Research. RFS has received consulting fees from GSK, Merck, and BreathResearch, salary and stocks from Pfizer, Theravance Biopharma US, and currently at BioMarin Pharmaceuticals Inc. JS is an employee of AbbVie Inc. which provides funding to the NHC and he owns AbbVie stock. JZ is an employee of and owns common stock in Gilead Sciences.
Data availability
Interview transcripts analyzed in this study contain potentially identifiable information. Individual transcripts will not be shared. The corresponding author can be contacted with any specific questions.
Additional information
The members of the National Health Council's Patient Experience Mapping Workgroup are listed in Acknowledgements.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Oehrlein, E.M., Schoch, S., Majercak, K. et al. Development and Testing of a Chronic-Disease Patient Experience Mapping Toolbox. Patient 17, 263–274 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00658-3
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00658-3