↓ Skip to main content

EUPATI and Patients in Medicines Research and Development: Guidance for Patient Involvement in Regulatory Processes

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
64 X users

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
EUPATI and Patients in Medicines Research and Development: Guidance for Patient Involvement in Regulatory Processes
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2018.00230
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Haerry, Cordula Landgraf, Kay Warner, Amy Hunter, Ingrid Klingmann, Matthew May, Wolf See

Abstract

The importance and merits of greater patient involvement in medicines research and development (R&D) are commonly acknowledged and is thought to offer benefits for all involved parties. It improves discovery, development, and evaluation of new effective medicines, based, among others, on the collaborative identification and understanding of unmet needs, research priorities, optimization of clinical study design, as well as incorporating patient views in regulatory activities. It fosters increased transparency, trust and mutual respect between patients and other stakeholders and applies to all stages of medicines R&D, inclusive of regulation and licensing of medicines and appraisal by health technology assessment (HTA) bodies. In order to be effective and beneficial for all stakeholders, patient engagement as an integral part of medicines R&D needs clear and mutually agreed rules. Existing codes of practice for patient involvement do not comprehensively cover the full scope of patient engagement in all processes related to R&D. One specific aim of the European Patients' Academy on Therapeutic Innovation (EUPATI) was to close this gap through the development of guidance documents for pharmaceutical industry-led medicines R&D, ethics committees, regulatory authorities and health technology assessment (HTA). The guidance in this article covers patient involvement in the regulatory field and draws on the mature "Framework for interaction between the European Medicines Agency and patients and consumers and their organizations." It expands on the EMA framework, specifically including National Competent Authorities (NCAs). It sets out objectives for patient involvement in medicines regulation and recommends concrete suggested working practices. It is primarily aimed at regulatory authorities wishing to interact with patients or their organizations in their activities but should also be considered by patients/patient organizations planning to collaborate with regulatory authorities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 64 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Researcher 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 5 6%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 33 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 10%
Social Sciences 7 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 38 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 October 2018.
All research outputs
#848,597
of 24,892,887 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#238
of 6,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,177
of 338,462 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#4
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,892,887 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,886 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 338,462 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.