4.6 Article

What do pharmaceutical industry professionals in Europe believe about involving patients and the public in research and development of medicines? A qualitative interview study

期刊

BMJ OPEN
卷 6, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008928

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Union [115334]
  2. EFPIA companies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To explore European-based pharmaceutical industry professionals' beliefs about patient and public involvement (PPI) in medicines research and development (R&D). Setting: Pharmaceutical companies in the UK, Poland and Spain. Participants: 21 pharmaceutical industry professionals, four based in the UK, five with pan-European roles, four based in Spain and eight based in Poland. Method: Qualitative interview study (telephone and face-to-face, semistructured interviews). All interviews were audio taped, translated (where appropriate) and transcribed for analysis using the Framework approach. Results: 21 pharmaceutical industry professionals participated. Key themes were: beliefs about (1) whether patients and the public should be involved in medicines R & D; (2) the barriers and facilitators to PPI in medicines R&D and (3) how the current relationships between the pharmaceutical industry, patient organisations and patients influence PPI in medicines R&D. Conclusions: Although interviewees appeared positive about PPI, many were uncertain about when, how and which patients to involve. Patients and the public's lack of knowledge and interest in medicines R&D, and the pharmaceutical industry's lack of knowledge, interest and receptivity to PPI were believed to be key challenges to increasing PPI. Interviewees also believed that relationships between the pharmaceutical industry, patient organisations, patients and the public needed to change to facilitate PPI in medicines R&D. Existing pharmaceutical industry codes of practice and negative media reporting of the pharmaceutical industry were also seen as negative influences on these relationships.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据