The outcomes are already chosen. So when can patients really shape them?
September 29, 2026 | Clinical assessment, EU HTA, Joint Clinical Assessment, Joint Scientific Consultation, clinical trial
Explore why involving patients early in Joint Scientific Consultations is critical to shaping the outcomes measured in clinical trials.
A clinical assessment can only judge the evidence in front of it. By the time that assessment begins, the trials are complete, the data has been collected, and the outcomes are already fixed.
So, if patients are first asked what matters to them at that point, they may have a voice. But they no longer have much room to change what is measured.
That is why timing matters. The most valuable patient conversation does not happen when the evidence is being assessed. It happens while the evidence is still being planned.
The point of no return
In the first post in this series, we asked whether giving patients a seat at the table is the same as making sure they are heard. In the second, we explored the gap between the outcomes that dominate patients’ lives and the endpoints that dominate clinical assessment.
Treatment burden, emotional impact, the ability to work, drive, care for family, or simply have more normal days. These experiences can shape whether a treatment feels worthwhile, yet they are not always captured by standard clinical endpoints.
A Joint Clinical Assessment (JCA) cannot put that right after the event. It is a rigorous assessment of the clinical evidence submitted for a medicine, compared with relevant existing treatment options. But it can only assess what was measured. It cannot create data that a trial never collected.
That is not a weakness in the JCA. It is the reality of evidence. You cannot go back and ask a completed trial a new question.
If an outcome needs to count later, it has to be considered earlier.
The earlier conversation that changes what comes later
The Joint Scientific Consultation (JSC) takes place during medicine development, before pivotal clinical studies are complete. It allows developers to seek advice from the EU HTA Coordination Group on their evidence-generation plans, including the populations to study, the comparators to use and the outcomes to measure.1
That makes the JSC a very different kind of opportunity for patient involvement.
At the JCA stage, patients can help people understand the evidence. At the JSC stage, they can help shape the questions that generate it.
This is the moment when an individual or patient organisation can say: this is the part of treatment that disrupts daily life; this is the trade-off our community weighs up; this is the outcome your current plan may miss.
Raised early enough, that insight can influence what a study measures. The right patient-reported outcome may be included. The data may then appear in the trial results, the submission dossier and, ultimately, the JCA.
Raised after the trial is complete, the same insight may still be important. But the evidence to assess it will not exist.
From lived experience to assessable evidence
In our analysis of public discussions in cancer communities, treatment burden was the outcome theme patients raised most often. Their posts were not framed in formal assessment language. They talked about hospital visits, infusions, scans, waiting, travel and the practical disruption of treatment.
A general statement that ‘treatment burden matters’ is easy to agree with. The earlier conversation has to go one step further. What aspect of the burden matters most? To whom? How does it affect daily life? Is there a credible way to measure it consistently?
That translation is where patient involvement becomes useful to evidence planning. It does not mean forcing lived experience into language that no longer feels human. It means connecting what people actually live with to a question a study can answer.
The difference is simple:
Early involvement can shape the evidence. Late involvement can only comment on the evidence already there.
Five moves that make early involvement real
Early involvement is not one invitation or one consultation window. It takes preparation on both sides. These five moves can help make it meaningful:
- Start with the development timeline. Identify when evidence-planning decisions are likely to be made and work back from there. The relationship needs to begin before the formal request for advice, not when the window is about to close.
- Define what matters, in patients’ own terms. Bring together the outcomes the community values, the language people use to describe them, and the gaps in existing trial measures. Clear, specific insight is easier to act on than a broad call to be more patient-focused.
- Connect experience to the evidence question. Consider how an issue relates to the population, comparator or outcome choices within the evidence plan. The aim is not to make patients speak like assessment experts, but to make sure their insight can influence a decision.
- Create the conditions for contribution. Share information in plain language, explain what is still open to change and be honest about where there are constraints. Patients and patient organisations need enough context to focus their effort where it can have the greatest effect.
- Build the relationship before the process begins. A JSC is formal, but trust is not built in a formal consultation window. Ongoing relationships give patient organisations and development teams the time to understand each other before the pressure is on.
An opportunity is not the same as access
The JSC creates an earlier route for patient input, but it does not automatically make early involvement easy. The process is technical. Timelines can be tight. Many patient organisations are small, volunteer-led, and already working across national systems as well as the new European process.
Telling organisations to engage earlier is therefore only half an answer. The other half is making it possible for them to do so without expecting them to arrive fully resourced, fluent in assessment language, and ready to respond at speed.
If we want patient involvement to shape evidence rather than simply react to it, we need to address that capacity gap too. That is where the next post in this series will turn.
Ready to talk?
If you are planning a Joint Scientific Consultation, the question is not simply whether patients will be involved. It is whether they will be involved early enough, and well enough, to change what gets measured.
We help development teams and patient organisations turn lived experience into clear, useful input without losing the voice behind it. If that’s the conversation you are preparing for, let’s talk.
References
- European Commission. Joint Scientific Consultations under the EU HTA Regulation. Available here. Accessed September 2026.
This content was provided by Cuttsy + Cuttsy
Company Details
Latest Content from Cuttsy + Cuttsy
The outcomes are already chosen. So when can patients really shape them?
Explore why involving patients early in Joint Scientific Consultations is critical to shaping the outcomes measured in clinical trials.
Long-term clinical trial engagement is a behavioural challenge – not just an informational one
Explore why long-term clinical trial engagement is a behavioural challenge, showing how proactive support from site teams can help participants stay connected, confident and committed throughout a study.
Patients are telling the truth — just not to you
Patients are often most honest outside the clinic—revealing vital insights that can help clinical trial teams build trust, improve participation and collect better data.
When what matters to patients is hard to measure
Patient-relevant outcomes sit at the heart of the EU HTA reforms, but ensuring they reflect lived experience requires you to look beyond what traditional clinical endpoints measure.
Permission to pause: making treatment breaks part of the cancer care conversation
Exploring how empathetic, patient-centred communication can make planned treatment breaks easier to discuss as part of cancer care.
A seat at the table: what the EU HTA reforms really ask of patient involvement
The EU HTA reforms give patients a formal role in assessing new medicines, but meaningful involvement requires more than simply offering them a seat at the table.
Why faster trials make participant understanding more important than ever
As clinical trials accelerate, clear, accessible consent is essential to help participants understand, engage with and remain in a study.
Older trial participants reject bad design, not technology
Older trial participants aren’t rejecting digital technology — they’re rejecting poorly designed, inaccessible experiences that make participation harder.
5 key takeaways from the Patient Centricity and Engagement Conference
Key takeaways from the Patient Centricity and Engagement conference, exploring how trust, inclusion and meaningful partnership can help turn patient engagement from intention into action.
It’s time to stop calling adverse events ‘manageable’
A single word—manageable—can minimise the real burden of treatment side effects, and it’s time clinical trial communication reflected patients’ lived experience more clearly.