A Collection Of Essays on Patient Centricity in Intervention Development
Author(s)
Matthew Reaney, PhD.
Head of Science & Analytics, Patient Centered Solutions, IQVIA, Reading, United Kingdom.
Head of Science & Analytics, Patient Centered Solutions, IQVIA, Reading, United Kingdom.
OBJECTIVES: The biopharmaceutical industry has focused on improving health and well-being in recent years. However, the public generally do not believe that patients are at the heart of medicines development. Is this a fair critique? This research aimed to understand “patient-centricity” in the biopharmaceutical industry in 2025.
METHODS: People who work in and around the biopharmaceutical industry were invited to answer 5 questions on patient-centric intervention development, reflecting on where we are today, what improvements are still to be made, and whether patient-centricity offers a genuine shift for the future of healthcare. They were asked to give their thoughts in the form of an essay.
RESULTS: Twenty-four essays were submitted. The authors (n=31) represented pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology manufacturers, patient advocacy organizations, people with lived experiences, patient experience data (PED) researchers, regulatory representatives and payer and health technology agency (HTA) advisors. Six themes were identified: (1) Patient centricity has evolved significantly in the past decade, driven by regulatory bodies, patients and advocacy groups. Patient-centered intervention development and clinical care is now encouraged. (2) Applications of patient centricity are inconsistent, sporadic and non-systematic, which is problematic. (3) The primary mechanism by which patient-centered intervention development has taken hold is through the generation of PED in clinical trials. Other patient-centric initiatives should be encouraged. (4) Patients have heterogeneous experiences which need to be explored and understood. (5) Patients want to be considered as equitable partners in the co-development of interventions. This requires a standardized framework for systematic, ethical and transparent patient engagement across all stages of intervention development. (6) The return on investing in patient partnerships needs to be established for it to be sustained.
CONCLUSIONS: Patient partnerships (involving patients longitudinally throughout intervention development) offer an alternative paradigm to “patient centricity” and should be encouraged. Work is needed to facilitate this.
METHODS: People who work in and around the biopharmaceutical industry were invited to answer 5 questions on patient-centric intervention development, reflecting on where we are today, what improvements are still to be made, and whether patient-centricity offers a genuine shift for the future of healthcare. They were asked to give their thoughts in the form of an essay.
RESULTS: Twenty-four essays were submitted. The authors (n=31) represented pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology manufacturers, patient advocacy organizations, people with lived experiences, patient experience data (PED) researchers, regulatory representatives and payer and health technology agency (HTA) advisors. Six themes were identified: (1) Patient centricity has evolved significantly in the past decade, driven by regulatory bodies, patients and advocacy groups. Patient-centered intervention development and clinical care is now encouraged. (2) Applications of patient centricity are inconsistent, sporadic and non-systematic, which is problematic. (3) The primary mechanism by which patient-centered intervention development has taken hold is through the generation of PED in clinical trials. Other patient-centric initiatives should be encouraged. (4) Patients have heterogeneous experiences which need to be explored and understood. (5) Patients want to be considered as equitable partners in the co-development of interventions. This requires a standardized framework for systematic, ethical and transparent patient engagement across all stages of intervention development. (6) The return on investing in patient partnerships needs to be established for it to be sustained.
CONCLUSIONS: Patient partnerships (involving patients longitudinally throughout intervention development) offer an alternative paradigm to “patient centricity” and should be encouraged. Work is needed to facilitate this.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
PCR2
Topic
Patient-Centered Research
Topic Subcategory
Patient Engagement
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas