The involvement of patient organisations in rare disease research: a mixed methods study in Australia

Abstract

BackgroundWe report here selected findings from a mixed-methods study investigating the role of Australian rare disease patient organisations (RDPOs) in research. Despite there being many examples of RDPOs that have initiated and supported significant scientific advances, there is little information – and none at all in Australia – about RDPOs generally, and their research-related goals, activities, and experiences. This information is a pre-requisite for understanding what RDPOs bring to research and how their involvement could be strengthened.MethodsWe reviewed 112 RDPO websites, conducted an online survey completed by 61 organisational leaders, and interviewed ten leaders and two key informants. Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed using basic descriptive statistics and content analysis, respectively.ResultsAlthough most are small volunteer-based groups, more than 90 % of the surveyed RDPOs had a goal to promote or support research on the diseases affecting their members. Nearly all (95 %) had undertaken at least one research-related activity – such as providing funding or other support to researchers – in the previous five years. However, RDPO leaders reported considerable challenges in meeting their research goals. Difficulties most frequently identified were insufficient RDPO resources, and a perceived lack of researchers interested in studying their diseases. Other concerns included inadequate RDPO expertise in governing research “investments”, and difficulty engaging researchers in the organisation’s knowledge and ideas. We discuss these perceived challenges in the light of two systemic issues: the proliferation of and lack of collaboration between RDPOs, and the lack of specific governmental policies and resources supporting rare disease research and patient advocacy in Australia.ConclusionThis study provides unique information about the experiences of RDPOs generally, rather than experiences retrospectively reported by RDPOs associated with successful research. We describe RDPOs’ valuable contributions to research, while also providing insights into the difficulties for small organisations trying to promote research. The study is relevant internationally because of what it tells us about RDPOs; however, we draw attention to specific opportunities in Australia to support RDPOs’ involvement in research, for the benefit of current and future generations affected by rare diseases.

Financial relationships between patient and consumer representatives and the health industry: A systematic review

“…The most frequently reported on outcome was the proportion of organizations that receive industry funding (65%). Six studies were questionnaire surveys . The median proportion of organizations that receive industry funding in five studies was 62% (IQR: 34%‐69%).…”

“…Six studies were questionnaire surveys. 12,28,30,31,34,35 The median proportion of organizations that receive industry funding in five studies was 62% (IQR: 34%-69%). The sixth study reported that 'more than 80%' of organizations did not receive funding from the pharmaceutical industry.…”

Challenges in orphan drug development and regulatory policy in China

“…Ninety percent of rare disease patient organizations have a goal of advancing research, with 95% participating in at least one research-related activity in the past year [39]. Fifteen percent of these organizations identified research as their primary goal.…”

An innovative and collaborative partnership between patients with rare disease and industry-supported registries: the Global aHUS Registry

“…This new model has been shown to promote innovation, support patient-centred actions, and facilitate the development of new treatments [1]. While many patient advocacy groups may work closely with scientists and clinicians, there are few publications available describing the type of interactions that occur, how regularly they occur and what input to the research programme the groups have [2, 3]. …”