Involving patients in HTA activities at local level: A study protocol based on the collaboration between researchers and knowledge users

BMC Health Services Research

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2012, Pages

  Gagnon, Marie Pierre ^a,b   Gagnon, Johanne ^a,b   St Pierre, Michèle ^b   Gauvin, François Pierre ^c   Piron, Florence ^b   Rhainds, Marc ^d   Coulombe, Martin ^d   Lepage Savary, Dolores ^e   Desmartis, Marie ^a   Tantchou Dipankui, Mylène ^b   Légaré, France ^a,b  

^a University Laval   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL   (Canada)

^c National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy   (Canada)

^d LAVAL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^e Institute national d'excellence en santé et services sociaux   (Canada)

Author keywords

alternatives to isolation and restraint; decision making; Health technology assessment; knowledge users; patient involvement

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CANADA; COOPERATION; EXERCISE; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HOSPITAL SUBDIVISIONS AND COMPONENTS; HUMAN; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PERSONNEL; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL;

ADULT; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HOSPITAL UNITS; HOSPITALS, UNIVERSITY; HUMANS; PATIENT ISOLATION; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; QUEBEC; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; RESTRAINT, PHYSICAL; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84855796684     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726963     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-14     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Understanding Health Technology Assessement (HTA). Health Equality Europe, HEA Guide to HTA for Patients 2008 48
2. Assessing genetic testing: Who are the "lay experts"? Goven J, Health Policy 2008 85 1 1 18 10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.06.004 17645980 (Pubitemid 350137515)
3. Technology assessment and the sociopolitics of health technologies. PLehoux P, Blume S, J Health Polit Policy Law 2000 25 6 1083 1120 10.1215/03616878-25-6-1083 11142053
4. Health care policy: Qualitative evidence and health technology assessment. Leys M, Health Policy 2003 65 217 226 10.1016/S0168-8510(02)00209-9 12941490 (Pubitemid 36993858)
5. Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda. Boote J, Telford R, Cooper C, Health Policy 2002 61 2 213 236 10.1016/S0168-8510(01)00214-7 12088893 (Pubitemid 34669916)
6. Patient-based health technology assessment: A vision of the future. Bridges JF, Jones C, Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007 23 1 30 35 17234014 (Pubitemid 46648297)
7. Perspectives on health technology assessment: response from the patient's perspective. Coulter A, Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004 20 1 92 96 15176184 (Pubitemid 38656968)
8. A consumer involvement model for health technology assessment in Canada. Pivik J, Rode E, Ward C, Health Policy 2004 69 2 253 268 10.1016/j.healthpol. 2003.12.012 15212871 (Pubitemid 38801501)
9. Why ethics should be part of health technology assessment. Hofmann BM, Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008 24 4 423 429 18828936
10. Mapping the integration of social and ethical issues in health technology assessment. Lehoux P, Williams-Jones B, Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007 23 01 9 16 17234011 (Pubitemid 46648294)
11. The lay perspective in health technology assessment. Ong BN, Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996 12 3 511 517 8840670 (Pubitemid 26295792)
12. Bringing 'the public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: from principles to practice. Abelson J, Giacomini M, Lehoux P, Gauvin FP, Health Policy 2007 82 1 37 50 10.1016/j.healthpol.2006.07.009 16996637 (Pubitemid 46610527)
13. Introducing patients' and the public's perspectives to health technology assessment: A systematic review of international experiences. Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Lepage-Savary D, Gagnon J, St-Pierre M, Rhainds M, Lemieux R, Gauvin FP, Pollender H, Legare F, Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011 27 1 31 42 10.1017/S0266462310001315 21262085
14. Analysis of a normative framework for evaluating public engagement exercises: reliability, validity and limitations. Rowe G, Horlick-Jones T, Walls J, Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF, Public Understanding of Science 2008 17 4 419 441 10.1177/0963662506075351
15. Identifying patient-relevant endpoints among individuals with schizophrenia: an application of patient-centered health technology assessment. Kinter ET, Schmeding A, Rudolph I, dosReis S, Bridges JF, Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009 25 1 35 41 10.1017/S0266462309090059 19126249
16. Pressure relieving support surfaces: a randomised evaluation. Nixon J, Nelson EA, Cranny G, Iglesias CP, Hawkins K, Cullum NA, Phillips A, Spilsbury K, Torgerson DJ, Mason S, Health Technol Assess 2006 10 22 1 163 17134596
17. Opening the Box. Evaluating the Citizens Council of NICE. Davies C, Wetherell M, Barnett E, Seymour-Smith S, The Open University: National Co-ordinating Centre for Research Methodology, NHS Research and Development Program 2005
18. Evaluation of public influence on the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. Oliver S, Armes D, Gyte G, Social Science Research Unit Institute of Education, University of London 2006
19. Involving consumers in a needs-led research programme: a pilot project. Oliver S, Milne R, Bradburn J, Buchanan P, Kerridge L, Walley T, Gabbay J, Health Expectations 2001 4 1 18 28 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00113.x 11286596 (Pubitemid 32230114)
20. Consumer involvement in the health technology assessment program. Royle J, Oliver S, Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004 20 4 493 497 15609801 (Pubitemid 39491499)
21. NVivo qualitative data analysis software; QSR International Pty Ltd, NVivo 8. NVivo 8, 2008
22. Huberman AM, Miles MB, Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications 2 1994
23. Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: findings from a citizens' jury. Menon D, Stafinski T, Health Expectations 2008 11 3 282 293 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00501.x 18816324
24. "It all depends": conceptualizing public involvement in the context of health technology assessment agencies. Gauvin FP, Abelson J, Giacomini M, Eyles J, Lavis JN, Soc Sci Med 2010 70 10 1518 1526 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.036 20207061
25. NICE Health Technology Appraisal Programme. Burchell M, Ruiz F, Barnett D, Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2005 87 4 283 284 10.1308/003588405X51092 16888847
26. The Birmingham Rehabilitation Uptake Maximisation Study (BRUM). Home-based compared with hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation in a multi-ethnic population: cost-effectiveness and patient adherence. Jolly K, Taylor R, Lip GY, Greenfield S, Raftery J, Mant J, Lane D, Jones M, Lee KW, Stevens A, Health Technol Assess 2007 11 35 1 118 17927921
27. A health technology assessment of HIV counseling and testing technologies: Evidence of effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and the consumer perspective. Hutchinson AB, PhD Georgia State University 2003
28. Developing information materials to present the findings of technology assessments to consumers. The experience of the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Entwistle VA, Watt IS, Davis H, Dickson R, Pickard D, Rosser J, Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1998 14 1 47 70 10.1017/S0266462300010527 9509795 (Pubitemid 28099783)
29. Introducing patient perspective in health technology assessment at the local level. Gagnon MP, Lepage-Savary D, Gagnon J, St-Pierre M, Simard C, Rhainds M, Lemieux R, Gauvin FP, Desmartis M, Legare F, BMC health services research 2009 9 54 10.1186/1472-6963-9-54 19327160
30. Barriers to patient involvement in health service planning and evaluation: an exploratory study. Gagliardi AR, Lemieux-Charles L, Brown AD, Sullivan T, Goel V, Patient Educ Couns 2008 70 2 234 241 10.1016/j.pec.2007.09. 009 18023129
31. Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Rowe G, Frewer L, Science Technology & Human Values 2000 25 1 3 29 10.1177/ 016224390002500101 22256356
32. Incorporating patients' perspectives in hospital-based health technology assessment (HTA): The views of HTA producers, hospital managers and patients. Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Lepage-Savary D, Gagnon J, St-Pierre M, Rhainds M, Lemieux R, Gauvin FP, Légaré F, 19th International Cochrane Colloquium: 2011; Madrid, Spain, October 19th-22nd, 2011 2011
33. Health policy-makers' perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. Innvaer S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A, J Health Serv Res Policy 2002 7 4 239 244 10.1258/135581902320432778 12425783
34. Health services research. Lomas J, BMJ 2003 327 7427 1301 1302 10.1136/bmj.327.7427.1301 14656811 (Pubitemid 37510448)
35. Guba EG, Lincoln YS, Fourth Generation Evaluation Newbury Park: Sage 1989
36. Patton MQ, Utilization-Focused Evaluation Sage Publications 4 2008
37. Have We Learned Anything New about the Use of Evaluation? Weiss C, Am J Eval 1998 19 1 21 33 (Pubitemid 128180055)
38. Toward a patient-centered approach: incorporating principles of participatory action research into clinical studies. White MA, Verhoef MJ, Integr Cancer Ther 2005 4 1 21 24 10.1177/1534735404273727 15695474 (Pubitemid 40250674)
39. Integrating theory and practice. Conceptual frameworks of the CEFP. Preskill H, Compton DW, Baizerman M, Smith IE, Cancer Pract 2001 9 Suppl 1 17 22 11912849
40. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, Robinson N, J Contin Educ Health Prof 2006 26 1 13 24 10.1002/chp.47 16557505
41. Study of participatory research in health promotion. Green LW, George MA, Daniel M, Frankish CJ, Herbert CJ, Bowie WR, et al. Ottawa: Royal Society of Canada 1994
42. Patient and public involvement in clinical practice guidelines: a knowledge synthesis of existing programs. Legare F, Boivin A, van der Weijden T, Pakenham C, Burgers J, Legare J, St-Jacques S, Gagnon S, Med Decis Making 2011 31 6 45 74 10.1177/0272989X11424401 21959267