"It all depends": Conceptualizing public involvement in the context of health technology assessment agencies

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 70, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 1518-1526

  Gauvin, Francois Pierre ^a   Abelson, Julia ^b   Giacomini, Mita ^b   Eyles, John ^b   Lavis, John N ^b  

^a INSTITUT NATIONAL DE SANTÉ PUBLIQUE DU QUÉBEC   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Canada; Denmark; Health technology assessment; Public involvement; UK

Indexed keywords

HEALTH CARE; POLICY MAKING; PUBLIC ACCESS; TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT;

ANALYTICAL RESEARCH; ARTICLE; CANADA; CONCEPT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DENMARK; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH SERVICE; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT; PUBLIC RELATIONS; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; UNITED KINGDOM;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; CANADA; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; DENMARK; GOVERNMENT AGENCIES; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; POLICY MAKING; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

CANADA; DENMARK; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 77951652460     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.036     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Abelson J., Gauvin F.-P. Engaging citizens: one route to health care accountability 2004, Canadian Policy Research Networks, Ottawa.
2. Abelson J., Giacomini M., Lehoux P., Gauvin F.-P. Bringing 'the public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: from principles to practice. Health Policy 2007, 82(1):37-50.
3. Andreasen P.B. Consensus conferences in different countries: aims and perspectives. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1988, 4(2):305-308.
4. Banken R. Bridges across the 'know-do' gap: Health technology assessment and health impact assessment 2004, Forum 8, Mexico City.
5. Banta D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy 2003, 63(2):121-132.
6. Barnes M., Newman J., Sullivan H. Discursive arenas: deliberation and the constitution of identity in public participation at a local level. Social Movement Studies 2006, 5(3):15.
7. Bastian H. Speaking up for ourselves: the evolution of consumer advocacy in health care. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1998, 14(1):3-23.
8. Battista R.N., Côté B., Hodge M.J., Husereau D. Health technology assessment in Canada. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2009, 25(s1):8.
9. Battista R.N., Hodge M.J. The evolving paradigm of health technology assessment: reflections for the millennium. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1999, 160(10):1464-1467.
10. Bishop P., Davis G. Mapping public participation in policy choices. Australian Journal of Public Administration 2002, 61(1):14-29.
11. Black D. The public: education and pressures relative to technologic developments. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1987, 3:83-90.
12. Braunack-Mayer A.J. Ethics and health technology assessment: handmaiden and/or critic?. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2006, 22(3):307-312.
13. Bridges J.F.P., Jones C. Patient-based health technology assessment: a vision of the future. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2007, 23(1):30-35.
14. CADTH Call for public members - For Canadian Expert Drug Advisory Committee (CEDAC) and Compus Expert Review Committee (CERC). CDR News 2006, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa.
15. Calnan M.W. The patient's perspective. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1998, 14(1):24-34.
16. CCOHTA Public involvement in priority-setting for HTA: A citizens' jury approach 2004, Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA), Ottawa.
17. Charles C., DeMaio S. Lay participation in health care decision making: a conceptual framework. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 1993, 18(4):881-901.
18. Cleary P.D. Satisfaction may not suffice! A commentary on 'A patient's perspective'. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1998, 14(1):35-37.
19. Cleemput I., Leys M., Ramaekers D., Bonneux L. Balancing evidence and public opinion in health technology assessments: the case of leukoreduction. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2006, 22(4):403-407.
20. Cochrane Collaboration Glossary of Cochrane Collaboration and research terms 2008, Oxford. Retrieved January 22, 2008, from. http://www.cochrane.org/resources/glossary.htm.
21. Coulter A. Perspectives on health technology assessment: response from the patient's perspective. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2004, 20(1):92-96.
22. Culyer A.J. Involving stakeholders in healthcare decisions-the experience of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales. Healthcare Quarterly 2005, 8(3):56-60.
23. Davies C., Wetherell M., Barnett E., Seymour-Smith S. Opening the box: Evaluating the citizens council of NICE 2005, Report prepared for the National Co-ordinating Centre for Research Methodology, NHS Research and Development Programme, Open University.
24. DIHTA The patient. Health technology assessment handbook 2001, 36-65. Danish Institute for Health Technology Assessment, Copenhagen. F.B. Kristensen, M. Horder, P.B. Poulsen (Eds.).
25. Drummond M., Banta D. Health technology assessment in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2009, 25(s1):4.
26. Entwistle V.A., Watt I.S., Davis H., Dickson R., Pickard D., Rosser J. Developing information materials to present the findings of technology assessments to consumers. The experience of the NHS centre for reviews and dissemination. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1998, 14(1):47-70.
27. EUnetHTA Stakeholder open forum 2007, European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA).
28. Florin D., Dixon J. Public involvement in health care. British Medical Journal 2004, 328:159-161.
29. Goven J. Assessing genetic testing: who are the " lay experts" ?. Health Policy 2008, 85(1):1-18.
30. Guston D.H. Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Science, Technology & Human Values 2001, 26(4):399-408.
31. Hailey D. Consumer involvement in health technology assessment 2005, HTA initiative #21 (p. 20), Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research, Edmonton.
32. Hailey D., Nordwall M. Survey on the involvement of consumers in health technology assessment programs. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2006, 22(4):497-499.
33. Hansen E.H. Technology assessment in a user perspective - experiences with drug technology. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1992, 8(1):150-165.
34. HTAi Patient and citizen involvement. Health Technology Assessment International, Edmonton 2007, accessed November 26, 2007, from. http://www.htai.org.
35. ten Have H. Ethical perspectives on health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2004, 20(01):71-76.
36. Jorgensen T. Consensus conference in the health care sector. Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe 1995, 17-30. Science Museum, London. S. Joss, J. Durant (Eds.).
37. Jorgensen T., Hvenegaard A., Kristensen F.B. Health technology assessment in Denmark. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2000, 16(2):347-381.
38. Lauslahti K., Roine R., Semberg V., KeKomäki M., Konttinen M., Karp P. Health technology assessment in Finland. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2000, 16(2):382-399.
39. Lehoux P. The problem of health technology: Policy implications for modern health care systems 2006, Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group, New York.
40. Lehoux P., Williams-Jones B. Mapping the integration of social and ethical issues in health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2007, 23(01):9-16.
41. Litva A., Coast J., Donovan J., Eyles J., Shepherd M., Tacchi J., et al. 'The public is too subjective': public involvement at different levels of health-care decision making. Social Science & Medicine 2002, 54:1825-1837.
42. MAS MAS-OHTAC public engagement process overview 2007, Medical Advisory Secretariat, Toronto.
43. McConnell E.A. The lay perspective in health technology assessment. AORN 1997, 65(5):984-986.
44. McDaid D. Co-ordinating health technology assessment in Canada: a European perspective. Health Policy 2003, 63:205-213.
45. Menon D., Fung F., Harstall C., O'Connell P. The development of a health technology assessment program. The case of Alberta. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1995, 11(1):93-101.
46. Morse J.M. Exploring the theoretical basis of nursing using advanced techniques of concept analysis. Advances in Nursing Sciences 1995, 17(3):31-46.
47. Morse J.M. Constructing qualitatively derived theory: concept construction and concept typologies. Qualitative Health Research 2004, 14:1387-1395.
48. NCCHTA Who are 'service users'? 2007, National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment (NCCHTA), Southampton.
49. NCCHTA Service user panel member: Job description 2006, National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment (NCCHTA), Southampton.
50. NHS-QIS HTA reference group 2008, NHS Quality Improvement Scotland, Edinburgh.
51. NICE A guide for patient/carer groups: Contributing to a technology appraisal 2004, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London.
52. Oliver S., Milne R., Bradburn J., Buchanan P., Kerridge L. Involving consumers in a needs-led research programme: a pilot project. Health Expectations 2001, 4:18-28.
53. Ong B.N. The lay perspective in health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1996, 12(3):511-517.
54. OTA Development of medical technology: Opportunities for assessment 1976, United States Congress: Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, D.C.
55. Patton M.Q. Qualitative research and evaluation methods 2002, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
56. Pivik J., Rode E., Ward C. A consumer involvement model for health technology assessment in Canada. Health Policy 2004, 69(2):253-268.
57. Rowe G., Frewer L.J. Evaluating public participation exercises: a research agenda. Science, Technology & Human Values 2004, 29(4):512-556.
58. Royle J., Oliver S. Consumer involvement in the health technology assessment program. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2004, 20(4):493-497.
59. Sartori G. Concept misinformation in comparative politics. The American Political Science Review 1970, 64(4):1033-1053.
60. Sigmund H., Kristensen F.B. Health technology assessment in Denmark: strategy, implementation, and developments. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2009, 25(s1):8.
61. Sisk J.E. Introduction. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1998, 14(1):1-2.
62. Strandberg-Larsen M., Nielsen M.B., Vallgarda S., Krasnik A., Vrangbæk K., Mossialos E. Denmark: health system review. Health Systems in Transition 2007, 9(6):1-164.
63. Tritter J.Q., McCallum A. The snakes and ladders of user involvement: moving beyond Arnstein. Health Policy 2006, 76:156-168.
64. Vang J. The consensus development conference and the European experience. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1986, 2(1):65-76.
65. Wait S., Nolte E. Public involvement in policies in health: exploring their conceptual basis. Health Economics, Policy and Law 2006, 1:149-162.