Can the Development of Orphan Drugs Include Wider Patient Engagement? A Citizens' Jury to Explore a Promissory Notion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Drug development practices for rare diseases promote a promissory notion that the drug pipeline will succeed (with the next new drug/drug trial) and an imaginary of widening patient engagement (often desired but yet to be enacted). Contemporary industry practices of patient engagement are shaped by this promissory, and engagement often includes limited patient perspectives, typically relying on patients from established Patient Organisations or identified by Contract Research Organisations. OBJECTIVE: We sought to explore whether more deliberative methods might enable wider, more diverse patient engagement for orphan drug trials. DESIGN: Citizen's Jury co-designed with patient advisors. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Results of an earlier ethnography of a biotech company's patient engagement practices, along with findings from clinical trials for patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, clinical practice and patient testimony, were presented to the Citizens' Jury made up of patients and carers. RESULTS: Jurors discussed and offered a 'verdict' on trial materials and processes that would optimise the engagement of more diverse patients for drug trials for rare diseases, suggesting that more could be done at an organisational level to ensure that potential trial participants were able to 'engage'. They asserted that the industry could do more to understand the unmet needs and wishes of a wider group of patients and should seek input from more diverse groups. DISCUSSION: The Citizens' Jury called for practices to enable wider engagement-for both drug trials and drug trial design-and more transparency about the risks associated with engagement, for individual patients and currently marginalised groups. CONCLUSIONS: Current drug development practices reify expert patient perspectives and often ignore the views of the wider group of patients who may participate in trials and/or use new medicines developed. More deliberative methods of engagement have the potential to democratise drug development and ensure that new medicines and trials meet the needs of a broader patient demographic. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A patient advisory group (PAG) comprising six people with IPF gave input into all aspects of the research design and conduct, including co-design of the Citizens' Jury. Two patients from international patient organisations served as a steering group (SG). Members of both groups provided their interpretations of the study findings and gave insight into their experiences in clinical design and participation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".