Data isn’t just an asset—it’s a trust marker. In life sciences, our credibility hinges on who contributes data and whether we are wise enough to listen. Patients aren’t just part of the story—they are the story. But where does that data come from, and who is contributing? It defines whether our innovations are truly inclusive, relevant, and effective.

Real-world evidence (RWE) captures health data from outside controlled clinical trials, such as wearable devices, patient forums, electronic health records, and symptom tracking apps. It reflects the daily realities of individuals managing chronic conditions, navigating medications, and seeking answers when the system fails to provide clarity.

As Yael Elish, one of the founders of the mega crowdsourcing transportation platform WAZE and now CEO and Founder of the patient RWE platform StuffThatWorks, has said, “Patients will never have a seat at the table until their data is considered part of the navigational guide for new medicines, devices, and indications of use.”

She’s right, but perhaps we must push ourselves to a new level of acknowledging why we are pursuing new approaches to care. This is not just about offering patients a seat at the allegorical table. It’s about acknowledging that the table of discovery and development exists for their benefit. The science, systems, and research all exist to serve their needs. Their voices and their lived experiences must inform the path forward.

A Silent Majority Speaks: The Data We Ignore

A recent survey conducted by StuffThatWorks, which gathered insights from more than 15,000 patients across 145 medical conditions, revealed a staggering disconnect. 92% of patients expressed a willingness to participate in clinical trials. Yet, 84% said they had never been asked, never invited to the table of health innovation.

This isn’t a communications oversight—it’s a justice issue. The system is failing those it claims to serve. Patients are ready to contribute. Some are out of options and want concrete action steps. They are waiting to be seen, heard, and engaged. Their personal care and experiential data they offer doesn’t just enrich our understanding—it recalibrates it.

“The Pharma Industry’s efforts to include patient voices have been a step in the right direction; however, they remain on a very small scale today,” notes Caroline Redeker, chief strategy officer at Advanced Clinical, a leading clinical research organization. “Interacting with a minimal number of patients without scale does not accurately represent the full patient population with the condition.  Using available static data (claims, EMR) detached from the patient covers the ‘what’ of patients – how many, where, with claims or treatments of a condition, and mostly in the US.”  

Redeker adds: “The more important factors in trial design include the ‘why,’ including most bothersome symptoms, effectiveness of treatments, regional differences, comorbidity considerations, and other valuable information to accurately design the right trial.  The ‘why’ information can only come directly from the patients.  The future will bring patients and their organized data to the table and include patient insights from all over the globe.”

Real-World Realities: Lessons from Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome

Consider Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS), a connective tissue disorder with 13 recognized subtypes, ranging from the more common hypermobile form to the rare, life-threatening vascular subtype. Each type carries a distinct constellation of symptoms and risks. Some people face chronic dislocations and mobility challenges, while others live with the daily fear of spontaneous organ rupture.

A single disease name masks and encompasses a spectrum of experiences. Standard clinical trial models often can’t keep up with that complexity. But thousands of patients with EDS are documenting their treatment responses, flares, and management strategies across RWE platforms such as StuffThatWorks—building a picture of this disease that’s as varied, inclusive and individualized as the people living with it.

“The StuffThatWorks survey expands the usual definition of real-world data to include this novel direct patient-inputted database,” says George Sands, MD, FAAN, FAHA, FACC, a former senior director at Pfizer and noted advocate for collaborating with patient communities  “Patients and patient advocacy groups want to partner with sponsors, whether pharma or academia, and to be fully represented in research endeavors. This is very different from sponsors looking to recruit and retain research participants more fully. This is about collaborating.” 

Dr. Sands adds, “Additionally, it is important to have all different patient populations, including people of color, so their data is included in the trials and can be used for clinical care. Otherwise, clinicians have to extrapolate based on those included in the trials; it doesn’t always work exactly.” 

That kind of data, born of day-to-day life, isn’t just complementary to clinical trials. It completes a fuller picture essential for developing effective treatments. Without it, we risk designing therapies that help in theory but fail in practice.

From Inside-Out to Outside-In

Much of medicine’s traditional approach to research is inside-out, starting with what companies aim to prove and working outward through the trial process. That’s not inherently wrong—it is how rigorous science is structured—but that is not enough.

We must also embrace outside-in realities as part of the innovation journey, where patients’ lived experiences inform what we explore, how we measure success, and who we prioritize.

Craig Lipset, founder of Clinical Innovation Partners, and co-chair of the unifying NGO/research industry Decentralized Trials & Research Alliance, and former Head of Clinical Innovation at Pfizer, has long championed a rebalancing of power in clinical trials.

“To earn and maintain trust, research participation must become a symbiotic relationship powered by a bidirectional flow of data and learnings, says Lipset. As patients share insight into study design, bring real-world data into trials, and share experience that shapes new endpoints, sponsors must commit to ensuring that study data and results are flowing back.”

That vision is becoming increasingly possible. With technologies that enable decentralized trials, remote monitoring, and electronic patient-reported outcomes, we can now collect real-world data at scale. However, that only matters if we respect what the data tells us and are willing to let patient experiences guide the research agenda. We give lip service to the importance of patient voice in biopharma research and marketing, but do we see them as “customers” of innovation?

The Science of Listening

Real-world evidence is the patient’s language—a narrative built not in labs but in lived experience. It’s not peripheral to science—it is science when equity is the goal. When patients share their stories, whether on online platforms, through wearables, or in digital symptom trackers, they are offering far more than an anecdote. They are offering insight. They contribute to the science of what works, for whom, and under what conditions.

And when we listen, we don’t just become better researchers. We become better healers.

We stand at a pivotal moment. Innovation can either deepen the divide between patients and science or bridge it. Real-world evidence is the support structure for that bridge. It offers us the opportunity to democratize discovery and reimagine research collectively.

Reflects StuffThatWorks Elish, “The current methods of involving patients in the clinical and health spaces are doomed to failure.  Patients’ voice will be heard ONLY when turned into organized data, at scale.  Because no one can argue or ignore organized data at scale. Once that’s accomplished, the integration of patient voice will proliferate and become easily accessible to everyone in multiple forms, including a simple AI-based chat question.  We are doing that at StuffThatWorks; it’s core to our mission and vision.” 

Ultimately, the patient wants to be invited to the table—but not as a token guest. Without them, there is no table worth setting. The patient is not a peripheral player in this system—they are the system’s purpose. They are not guests in the system. They may not be the core customer of the health system, a universe that centers around its economic viability. Still, in the world of health system kinetics, where we examine the relationship and priority of the sector pieces, they are the reason we unite to invent solutions to confront disease, despair and death.  And the future of medicine depends on how well we recognize that truth.

The future of medicine hinges on one choice—do we continue treating patients as passive subjects, or as co-creators of the care that might save their lives? That’s not philosophy. That’s leadership.

Interested in this topic – here is more to explore:

Aman Gupta: Patient Inclusivity: The Missing Piece In Pharma’s Global Innovation Strategy

The Need for High Quality, Reliable Information that is Data-Driven – A Conversation with Yael Elish

Gil Bashe: Real-World Evidence Unlocks Consumer Voice to Improve Care