Evaluation of the quality of patient involvement in a patient-led analysis of the lived experience of a rare disease

Abstract

Abstract Background Patients themselves are best placed to provide insights on the lived experience and to lead the analysis of such insights to bring the patient voice into peer-reviewed literature. In doing so, they can meet the authorship criteria for subsequent research publications. It is important to evaluate patient engagement to identify ways to improve future collaborations. Here, we describe the approach taken during a patient-led and patient co-authored analysis of the lived experience of generalized myasthenia gravis, which may be applicable to other indications. We also assessed the quality of patient engagement throughout the research project. Methods We used self-reported experience surveys based on the Patient Focused Medicines Development Patient Engagement Quality Guidance criteria for assessing patient engagement. The surveys were adapted to focus on individual projects and assessed eight domains using a five-point Likert scale. In September 2020, we invited eight patient council members to complete a self-reported experience survey following qualitative lived experience data generation. We calculated the average experience score as a percentage of the maximum possible score. Patient authors (n = 1) and non-patient authors (n = 3) were invited to complete a similar survey in November 2021, with questions customized for relevance, to evaluate the authorship experience following publication of the research. Results Overall, patient council members had a positive experience of taking part in this study, with an average experience score of 90% (71.6/80.0; n = 8). The patient author and non-patient authors rated their authorship experience highly, with average experience scores of 92% (78.0/85.0) and 97% (63.3/65.0), respectively. There were key aspects that contributed to the overall project success (e.g., ensuring that all participants were aligned on the project objectives at the outset and understood their roles and responsibilities). We also identified elements of the approach that could be improved in future collaborations. Conclusion In this patient-led analysis, patient council members, patient authors and non-patient authors had a positive experience of being involved in the project. We gained useful insights into elements that contributed to the project’s success and ways to improve future patient-led projects on the lived experience.