Health technology assessment use and dissemination by patient and consumer groups: Why and how?

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 473-480

  Fattal, Julie ^a   Lehoux, Pascale ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Consumer participation; Health technology assessment; Information dissemination; Innovation diffusion; Patient participation

Indexed keywords

HEALTH; INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS; KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT; TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING; TECHNOLOGY; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INNOVATION DIFFUSION; PATIENT PARTICIPATION;

SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CANADA; CONSUMER; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; KNOWLEDGE; ORGANIZATION; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW;

CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; DRUG UTILIZATION; ELECTROCONVULSIVE THERAPY; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INSURANCE, PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PRENATAL CARE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 53149089068     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462308080628     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Abelson J, Eyles J, McLeod CB, et al. Does deliberation make a difference? Results from a citizens panel study of health goals priority setting. Health Policy. 2003;66:95-106.
2. AETMIS. The use of electroconvulsive therapy in Québec. Report prepared by Reiner Banken. Montreal: Agence d'évaluation des technologies et des modes d'interventions en santé; 2002:xvii-96.
3. AETMIS. First-trimester prenatal screening for Down syndrome and other aneuploidies. Report prepared by Alicia Framarin. Montreal: Agence d'évaluation des technologies et des modes d'interventions en santé; 2003:xxii-81.
4. Barbot J. How to build an "active" patient? The work of AIDS associations in France. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62:538-551.
5. Battista RN, Hodge MJ. The existing paradigm of health technology assessment: Reflections for the millennium. CMAJ. 1999;160:1464-1467.
6. Brown P, Zavestoski S. Social movements in health: An introduction. Sociol Health Illn. 2004;26:679-694.
7. Caron-Flinterman JF, Broerse JE, Bunders JF. The experiential knowledge of patients: A new resource for biomedical research? Soc Sci Med. 2005;60:2575-2584.
8. Eisenberg JM. Ten lessons for evidence-based technology assessment. JAMA. 1999;282:1865-1868.
9. Entwistle VA, Renfrew MJ, Yearley S, Forrester J, Lamont T. Lay perspectives: Advantages for health research. BMJ. 1998;316:463-466.
10. Entwistle VA, Watt IS, Davis H, et al. Developing information materials to present the findings of technology assessments to consumers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998;14:47-70.
11. Fox NJ, Ward KJ, O'Rourke AJ. The 'expert patient': Empowerment or medical dominance? The case of weight loss, pharmaceutical drugs and the Internet. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60:1299-1309.
12. Germann K, Wilson D. Organizational capacity for community development in regional health authorities: A conceptual model. Health Promot Int. 2004;19:289-298.
13. Greer AL, Goodwin JS, Freeman JL, Wu ZH. Bringing the patient back in: Guidelines, practice variations, and the social context of medical practice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:747-761.
14. Harrisson MI. Organizational diagnosis and assessment: Bridging theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1999.
15. Hartley J, Benington J. Copy and paste, or graft and transplant? Knowledge sharing through inter-organizational networks. Public Money Manage. 2006;26:101-108.
16. Hivon M, Lehoux P, Denis JL, Tailliez S. Use of health technology assessment in decision making: Coresponsibility of users and producers? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:268-275.
17. ICES. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in asymptomatic men. Ottawa: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences; 2002.
18. ICES. What effects do provincial drug plan coverage policies for new drugs have on patterns of use and cost? Ottawa: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences; 2003.
19. Jørgensen T, Hvenegaard A, Kristensen FB. Health technology assessment in Denmark. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:347-381.
20. Lavis JN. Research, public policymaking, and knowledge-translation processes: Canadian efforts to build bridges. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26:37-45.
21. Lomas J, Fulop N, Gagnon D, Allen P. On being a good listener: Setting priorities for applied health services research. Milbank Q. 2003;81:363-388.
22. Menon D, Stafinski T. A Canadian health technology diffusion and management strategy: A discussion paper. Ottawa: Federal/Provincial/ Territorial Working Group on the Canadian Health Technology Strategy; 2003.
23. NHMRC. Guide to effective participation of consumers and communities in developing and disseminating health information. Canberra: Australian Government; 2006.
24. Nilsen ES, Myrhaug HT, Johansen M, Oliver S, Oxman AD. Methods of consumer involvement in developing healthcare policy and research, clinical practice guidelines and patient information material. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006; 3: CD004563.
25. Patton MQ. Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2002.
26. Peltz DC. Some expanded perspectives on the use of social science in public policy. In: Yinger J, Cutler S, eds. Major social issues: A multidisciplinary view. New York: Free Press; 1978:346-357.
27. Pivik J, Rode E, Ward C. A consumer involvement model for health technology assessment in Canada. Health Policy. 2004;69:253-268.
28. Royle J, Oliver S. Consumer involvement in the health technology assessment program. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:493-497.
29. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1998.
30. Thompson AG. The meaning of patient involvement and participation in health care consultations: A taxonomy. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64:1297-1310.