Public Participation in Access to Medicines

  • Sofia CrisóstomoEmail author
  • Filipa Alves da Costa


Global pharmaceutical policy encompasses various aspects, including access to medication. Access has been referred to as being deeply influenced by pricing, financing, reliable systems and rational selection, aspects detailed in other chapters of this book. In all of these areas however, the role of public participation is essential, which we detail in the current chapter, by providing the general context, discussing their role in research, in regulatory agencies and in health technology assessment. We finalize by providing specific examples of public participation, using case studies from HIV, cancer and rare diseases, all of which support the essential role of citizens in modelling access to medication.


  1. Declaration of Alma-Ata. In: International Conference on Primary Health Care, 6–12 September [Internet]. Alma-ata, USSR: World Health Organization; 1978. Available from:
  2. Council of Europe. Recommendation No. R (2000) 5 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the development of structures for citizen and patient participation in the decision-making process affecting health care [Internet]. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe; 2000. Available from:
  3. Florin D. Public involvement in health care. BMJ [Internet]. 2004 Jan 17;328(7432):159–61. Available from:
  4. Mitton C, Smith N, Peacock S, Evoy B, Abelson J. Public participation in health care priority setting: A scoping review. Health Policy. 2009;91(3):219–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. European Patients’ Forum. Patient Empowerment Campaign [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2016 Oct 28]. Available from:
  6. Kickbusch I, Gleicher D. Governance for Health in the 21st Century [Internet]. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2012. Available from:
  7. World Health Organization. Framework on integrated people-centred health services. Report by the Secretariat. [Internet]. 2016. Available from:
  8. Ives J, Damery S, Redwod S. PPI, paradoxes and Plato: who’s sailing the ship?: Table 1. J Med Ethics [Internet]. 2013 Mar;39(3):181–5. Available from:
  9. International Alliance of Patients’ Organizations. Policy statement. Patient Involvement [Internet]. London; 2005. Available from:
  10. Frankish C, Kwan B, Ratner P, Wharf-Higgins J, Larsen C. Challenges of citizen participation in regional health authorities. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54:1471–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Tallon D, Chard J, Dieppe P. Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer. Lancet. 2000;355(9220):2037–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Barnes M, Skelcher C, Beirens H, Dalziel R, Jeffares S, Wilson L. Designing citizen-centered governance. Birmingham: Joseph Rowntree Foundation; 2008.Google Scholar
  13. Van De Bovenkamp HM, Trappenburg MJ, Grit KJ. Patient participation in collective healthcare decision making: the Dutch model. Heal Expect [Internet]. 2010 Feb 17;13(1):73–85. Available from:
  14. Tritter JQ, McCallum, A. The snakes and ladders of user involvement: Moving beyond Arnstein. Health Policy (New York) [Internet]. 2006 Apr;76(2):156–68. Available from:
  15. Cooper L, Coote A, Davies A, Jackson C. Voices off: tackling the democratic deficit in health. London: Institute for Public Policy Research; 1995.Google Scholar
  16. Terzi A. The patients’ involvement in health policies in Europe. [Internet]. Roma: Active Citizenship Network; 2013. Available from:
  17. OECD. Citizens as Partners [Internet]. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2001. Available from: Scholar
  18. European Commission. White Paper. Together for Health: A Strategic Approach for the EU 2008–2013 [Internet]. Brussels; 2007. Available from:
  19. Montgomery AA, Fahey, T. How do patients’ treatment preferences compare with those of clinicians? Qual Saf Heal Care [Internet]. 2001 Sep 1;10(Supplement 1):i39–43. Available from:
  20. Sewitch MJ, Abrahamowicz M, Dobkin PL, Tamblyn R. Measuring differences between patients’ and physicians’ health perceptions: the patient-physician discordance scale. J Behav Med [Internet]. 2003 Jun;26(3):245–64. Available from:
  21. Harrison JD. Patient and Physician Preferences for Surgical and Adjuvant Treatment Options for Rectal Cancer. Arch Surg [Internet]. 2008 Apr 1;143(4):389. Available from:
  22. da Silva JAP, Ramiro S, Pedro S, Rodrigues A, Vasconcelos JC, Benito-Garcia E. Patients- and physicians- priorities for improvement. The case of rheumatic diseases. Acta Reumatol Port [Internet]. 2010;35(2):192–9. Available from:
  23. Miravitlles M, Ferrer J, Baró E, Lleonart M, Galera J. Differences between physician and patient in the perception of symptoms and their severity in COPD. Respir Med [Internet]. 2013 Dec;107(12):1977–85. Available from:
  24. Fergusson D, Monfaredi Z, Pussegoda K, Garritty C, Lyddiatt A, Shea B, et al. The prevalence of patient engagement in published trials: a systematic review. Res Involv Engagem [Internet]. 2018 Dec 22;4(1):17. Available from:
  25. Sacristan JA, Aguaron A, Avendaño C, Garrido P, Carrion J, Gutierrez A, et al. Patient involvement in clinical research: why, when, and how. Patient Prefer Adherence [Internet]. 2016 Apr;631. Available from:
  26. Geissler J, Ryll B, di Priolo SL, Uhlenhopp M. Improving Patient Involvement in Medicines Research and Development: Ther Innov Regul Sci [Internet]. 2017 Sep 8;51(5):612–9. Available from:
  27. Cook NS, Cave J, Holtorf A-P. Patient Preference Studies During Early Drug Development: Aligning Stakeholders to Ensure Development Plans Meet Patient Needs. Front Med [Internet]. 2019 Apr 24;6. Available from:
  28. Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC [Internet]. 2014. Available from:
  29. AVAC. Fact Sheet: Data Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMBs) [Internet]. 2011. Available from:
  30. Huang GD, Bull J, Johnston McKee K, Mahon E, Harper B, Roberts JN. Clinical trials recruitment planning: A proposed framework from the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative. Contemp Clin Trials [Internet]. 2018 Mar;66:74–9. Available from:
  31. Summaries of Clinical Trial Results for Laypersons. Recommendations of the expert group on clinical trials for the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use. Version 2 [Internet]. 2018. Available from:
  32. Garfield S, Jheeta S, Husson F, Lloyd J, Taylor A, Boucher C, et al. The Role of Hospital Inpatients in Supporting Medication Safety: A Qualitative Study. Li D, editor. PLoS One [Internet]. 2016 Apr 19;11(4):e0153721. Available from:
  33. Oliver S. Patient involvement in setting research agendas. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol [Internet]. 2006 Sep;18(9):935–8. Available from:
  34. Mavris M, Le Cam Y. Involvement of Patient Organisations in Research and Development of Orphan Drugs for Rare Diseases in Europe. Mol Syndromol [Internet]. 2012; Available from:
  35. PCORI. Engagement Rubric for Applicants [Internet]. 2016. Available from:
  36. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research - Patient Engagement Framework [Internet]. 2014. Available from:
  37. NIHR | INVOLVE. Guidance on co-producing a research project [Internet]. 2018. Available from:
  38. Warner K, See W, Haerry D, Klingmann I, Hunter A, May M. EUPATI Guidance for Patient Involvement in Medicines Research and Development (R&D); Guidance for Pharmaceutical Industry-Led Medicines R&D. Front Med [Internet]. 2018 Oct 9;5. Available from:
  39. Klingmann I, Heckenberg A, Warner K, Haerry D, Hunter A, May M, et al. EUPATI and Patients in Medicines Research and Development: Guidance for Patient Involvement in Ethical Review of Clinical Trials. Front Med [Internet]. 2018 Sep 7;5. Available from:
  40. Ganz PA. Impact of Tamoxifen Adjuvant Therapy on Symptoms, Functioning, and Quality of Life. JNCI Monogr [Internet]. 2001 Dec 1;2001(30):130–4. Available from:
  41. Ganz PA, Cecchini RS, Julian TB, Margolese RG, Costantino JP, Vallow LA, et al. Patient-reported outcomes with anastrozole versus tamoxifen for postmenopausal patients with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with lumpectomy plus radiotherapy (NSABP B-35): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial. Lancet [Internet]. 2016 Feb;387(10021):857–65. Available from:
  42. Kluetz PG, Slagle A, Papadopoulos EJ, Johnson LL, Donoghue M, Kwitkowski VE, et al. Focusing on Core Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Clinical Trials: Symptomatic Adverse Events, Physical Function, and Disease-Related Symptoms. Clin Cancer Res [Internet]. 2016 Apr 1;22(7):1553–8. Available from:
  43. Milman N, McConville E, Robson JC, Boonen A, Tugwell P, Wells GA, et al. Updating OMERACT Core Set of Domains for ANCA-associated Vasculitis: Patient Perspective Using the International Classification of Function, Disability, and Health. J Rheumatol [Internet]. 2019 Feb 1;jrheum.181073. Available from:
  44. Richards T, Snow R, Schroter S. Logging The BMJ’s “patient journey.” BMJ [Internet]. 2015 Aug 17;h4396. Available from:
  45. PCORI. Research Funding [Internet]. 2019. Available from:
  46. National Institute for Health Research. Funding opportunities for research and career development [Internet]. 2017. Available from:
  47. European Commission. Horizon 2020. Public Engagement in Responsible Research and Innovation [Internet]. Available from:
  48. Food and Drug Administration. Learn About FDA Patient Engagement [Internet]. Available from:
  49. European Medicines Agency. Patients and consumers [Internet]. Available from:
  50. Haerry D, Landgraf C, Warner K, Hunter A, Klingmann I, May M, et al. EUPATI and Patients in Medicines Research and Development: Guidance for Patient Involvement in Regulatory Processes. Front Med [Internet]. 2018 Aug 17;5. Available from:
  51. Knox S. Health economic decision making in Europe – a new priority for breast cancer advocacy. The Breast [Internet]. 2009 Apr;18(2):71–2. Available from:
  52. Boutin M, Dewulf L, Hoos A, Geissler J, Todaro V, Schneider RF, et al. Culture and Process Change as a Priority for Patient Engagement in Medicines Development. Ther Innov Regul Sci [Internet]. 2017 Jan 20;51(1):29–38. Available from:
  53. Scott AM, Wale JL. Patient advocate perspectives on involvement in HTA: an international snapshot. Res Involv Engagem [Internet]. 2017 Dec 10;3(1):2. Available from:
  54. Hunter A, Facey K, Thomas V, Haerry D, Warner K, Klingmann I, et al. EUPATI Guidance for Patient Involvement in Medicines Research and Development: Health Technology Assessment. Front Med [Internet]. 2018 Sep 6;5. Available from:
  55. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Patient and public involvement policy [Internet]. [cited 2019 Jul 22]. Available from:
  56. IQWiG. Contributing the patients’ perspective [Internet]. Available from:
  57. Crisóstomo S, Santos M. Participação pública na saúde: das ideias à ação em Portugal. Rev Crit Cienc Sociais [Internet]. 2018 Dec 1;(117):167–86. Available from:
  58. INFARMED. Doentes e associações de doentes: Incluir [Internet]. [cited 2019 Jul 22]. Available from:
  59. Advisory Committee of the People with AIDS. The Denver Principles [Internet]. 1983. p. Available from:
  60. Fischl MA, Richman DD, Grieco MH, Gottlieb MS, Volberding PA, Laskin OL, et al. The Efficacy of Azidothymidine (AZT) in the Treatment of Patients with AIDS and AIDS-Related Complex. N Engl J Med [Internet]. 1987 Jul 23;317(4):185–91. Available from:
  61. Crimp D. Before Occupy: How AIDS Activists Seized Control of the FDA in 1988. The Atlantic [Internet]. 2011 Dec 6; Available from:
  62. Lessem E. Nothing About Us Without Us: Community Engagement in Research to End the Epidemics. TAGline [Internet]. 2019;26(1). Available from:
  63. Heffernan A, Cooke GS, Nayagam S, Thursz M, Hallett TB. Scaling up prevention and treatment towards the elimination of hepatitis C: a global mathematical model. Lancet [Internet]. 2019 Mar;393(10178):1319–29. Available from:
  64. World Health Organization. Global Hepatitis Report 2017 [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. Available from: Scholar
  65. Lomas J, Claxton K, Martin S, Soares M. Resolving the “Cost-Effective but Unaffordable” Paradox: Estimating the Health Opportunity Costs of Nonmarginal Budget Impacts. Value Heal [Internet]. 2018 Mar;21(3):266–75. Available from:
  66. Millman AJ, Ntiri-Reid B, Irvin R, Kaufmann MH, Aronsohn A, Duchin JS, et al. Barriers to Treatment Access for Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Infection: A Case Series. Top Antivir Med [Internet]. 2017;25(3):110–3. Available from:
  67. Douglass CH, Pedrana A, Lazarus J V., ‘t Hoen EFM, Hammad R, Leite RB, et al. Pathways to ensure universal and affordable access to hepatitis C treatment. BMC Med [Internet]. 2018 Dec 9;16(1):175. Available from:
  68. Kieslich K, Ahn J, Badano G, Chalkidou K, Cubillos L, Hauegen RC, et al. Public participation in decision-making on the coverage of new antivirals for hepatitis C. Kieslich, Peter Littlejohns and Alb K, editor. J Health Organ Manag [Internet]. 2016 Aug 15;30(5):769–85. Available from:
  69. Kaplan K. Activist Satregies for Increasing Access to HCV Treatment in Low- and Middle-Income Countries [Internet]. TAG – Treatment Action Group; 2015. Available from:
  70. Grillon C, Krishtel PR, Mellouk O, Basenko A, Freeman J, Mendão L, et al. Treatment advocate tactics to expand access to antiviral therapy for HIV and viral hepatitis C in low- to high-income settings: making sure no one is left behind. J Int AIDS Soc [Internet]. 2018 Apr;21:e25060. Available from:
  71. Chapman AR, Buckley T. Lowering the High Cost of Hepatitis C Drugs. J Pharm Care Heal Syst [Internet]. 2017;04(05). Available from:
  72. Pii KH, Schou LH, Piil K, Jarden M. Current trends in patient and public involvement in cancer research: A systematic review. Heal Expect [Internet]. 2019 Feb;22(1):3–20. Available from:
  73. Vaz-Luis I, O’Neill A, Sepucha K, Miller KD, Baker E, Dang CT, et al. Survival benefit needed to undergo chemotherapy: Patient and physician preferences. Cancer [Internet]. 2017 Aug 1;123(15):2821–8. Available from:
  74. Dika E, Patrizi A, Ribero S, Fanti PA, Starace M, Melotti B, et al. Hair and nail adverse events during treatment with targeted therapies for metastatic melanoma. Eur J Dermatology. 2016;26(3):232–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Castellanos EH, Chen S, Drexler H, Horn L. Making the Grade: The Impact of Low-Grade Toxicities on Patient Preference for Treatment With Novel Agents. J Natl Compr Canc Netw [Internet]. 2015 Dec;13(12):1490–5. Available from:
  76. Macdonald JB, Macdonald B, Golitz LE, LoRusso P, Sekulic A. Cutaneous adverse effects of targeted therapies. J Am Acad Dermatol [Internet]. 2015 Feb;72(2):203–18. Available from:
  77. Trask PC, Dueck AC, Piault E, Campbell A. Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events: Methods for item selection in industry-sponsored oncology clinical trials. Clin Trials [Internet]. 2018 Dec 19;15(6):616–23. Available from:
  78. Marandino L, La Salvia A, Sonetto C, De Luca E, Pignataro D, Zichi C, et al. Deficiencies in health-related quality-of-life assessment and reporting: a systematic review of oncology randomized phase III trials published between 2012 and 2016. Ann Oncol [Internet]. 2018 Dec 1;29(12):2288–95. Available from:
  79. Catt S, Starkings R, Shilling V, Fallowfield L. Patient-reported outcome measures of the impact of cancer on patients’ everyday lives: a systematic review. J Cancer Surviv [Internet]. 2017 Apr 10;11(2):211–32. Available from:
  80. Vitry A, Nguyen T, Entwistle V, Roughead E. Regulatory withdrawal of medicines marketed with uncertain benefits: the bevacizumab case study. J Pharm Policy Pract [Internet]. 2015 Dec 19;8(1):25. Available from:
  81. Gabe J, Chamberlain K, Norris P, Dew K, Madden H, Hodgetts D. The debate about the funding of Herceptin: A case study of ‘countervailing powers’. Soc Sci Med [Internet]. 2012 Dec;75(12):2353–61. Available from:
  82. European Cancer Patient Coalition. Europe of Disparities [Internet]. [cited 2019 Jul 26]. Available from:
  83. Mcmillan Cancer Support. We make change happen [Internet]. [cited 2019 Jul 26]. Available from:
  84. Banks M. MEPs launch ‘elections manifesto’ in fight against cancer. The Parliament Magazine [Internet]. 2019 Jan 29; Available from:‘elections-manifesto’-fight-against-cancer
  85. The All Party Parliamentary Group on Cancer. Report of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Cancer’s Inquiry into Inequalities in Cancer [Internet]. 2009. Available from:
  86. Gordon A, Gordon L. The Progeria Research Foundation: its remarkable journey from obscurity to treatment. Expert Opin Orphan Drugs [Internet]. 2014 Nov 30;2(11):1187–95. Available from:
  87. ALS Association. ALS Ice Bucket Challenge Commitments [Internet]. [cited 2019 Jul 22]. Available from:
  88. AKU Society. DevelopAKUre [Internet]. [cited 2019 Jul 22]. Available from:
  89. Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy. Research [Internet]. [cited 2019 Jul 22]. Available from:
  90. Findacure. Drug repurposing [Internet]. [cited 2019 Jul 22]. Available from:
  91. NORD. Programs and Services [Internet]. [cited 2019 Jul 22]. Available from:

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Centre for Research and Studies in Sociology (CIES-IUL)University Institute of Lisbon (ISCTE-IUL)LisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Treatment Activists Group (GAT)LisbonPortugal
  3. 3.Centre for Interdisciplinary Research Egas Moniz (CiiEM)University Institute Egas MonizCaparicaPortugal
  4. 4.Research Institute for Medicines (iMED.ULisboa), Faculty of PharmacyUniversity of LisbonLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations