Introducing the patient's perspective in hospital health technology assessment (HTA): The views of HTA producers, hospital managers and patients

Health Expectations

Volumn 17, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 888-900

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

^a University Laval   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL   (Canada)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d LAVAL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^e Institut National D'Excellence En Santé Et En Services Sociaux   (Canada)

Author keywords

Consumer involvement; Health technology assessment; Hospital based HTA; Patient participation; Patient perspective; Viewpoints of stakeholders

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CANADA; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HOSPITAL; HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATOR; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERVIEW; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PSYCHOLOGY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; FOCUS GROUPS; HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATORS; HOSPITALS; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUEBEC; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84911992738     PISSN: 13696513     EISSN: 13697625     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/hex.12010     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Granados A. Health technology assessment and clinical decision making: which is the best evidence? International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1999; 15: 585-592.
2. Lehoux P, Battista R. Évaluation des technologies de la santé au Québec: Bilans et défis. In: Lemieux V, Bergeron P, Bégin C, Bélanger G (eds) Le système de santé au Québec: Organisations, acteurs et enjeux. Quebec: Les Presses de l'Université Laval, 2003: 435-464.
3. Battista RN, Cote B, Hodge MJ, Husereau D. Health technology assessment in Canada. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2009; 25 (Suppl. 1): 53-60.
4. McGregor M, Brophy JM. End-user involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) development: a way to increase impact. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2005; 21: 263-267.
5. McGregor M. What decision-makers want and what they have been getting. Value in Health, 2006; 9: 181-185.
6. Hospital Based Health Technology Assessment Sub-Interest Group. Hospital Based Health Technology Assessment World-Wide Survey. Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi), 2008. Available at: http://www.htai.org/fileadmin/HTAi_Files/ISG/HospitalBasedHTA/2008Files/HospitalBasedHTAISGSurveyReport.pdf, accessed 24 September 2012.
7. Boote J, Telford R, Cooper C. Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda. Health Policy, 2002; 61: 213-236.
8. Bridges JF, Jones C. Patient-based health technology assessment: a vision of the future. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2007; 23: 30-35.
9. Coulter A. Perspectives on health technology assessment: response from the patient's perspective. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2004; 20: 92-96.
10. Hofmann B. Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2005; 21: 312-318.
11. Lehoux P, Blume S. Technology assessment and the sociopolitics of health technologies. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 2000; 25: 1083-1120.
12. Ong BN. The lay perspective in health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1996; 12: 511-517.
13. Health Equality Europe. Understanding Health Technology Assessement (HTA). Journal [serial on the Internet]. 2008 Date: Available at: http://img.eurordis.org/newsletter/pdf/nov-2010/58-1%20HEE%20Guide%20To%20HTA%20for%20Patients%20English.pdf, accessed 24 September 2012.
14. Littlejohns P, Barnett D, Longson C. The cancer technology appraisal programme of the UK's National Institute for Clinical Excellence. The Lancet Oncology, 2003; 4: 242-250.
15. The Change Foundation, IBM Business Consulting. Consumers and Canadian Health Care Trending Analysis 2004. 2005. 23p.
16. Abelson J, Giacomini M, Lehoux P, Gauvin FP. Bringing 'the public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: from principles to practice. Health Policy, 2007; 82: 37-50.
17. Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Lepage-Savary D, Gagnon J, St-Pierre M, Rhainds M, et al. Introducing patients' and the public's perspectives to health technology assessment: a systematic review of international experiences. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2011; 27: 31-42.
18. Appel LJ, Steinberg EP, Powe NR, Anderson GF, Dwyer SA, Faden RR. Risk reduction from low osmolality contrast media. What do patients think it is worth?. Medical Care, 1990; 28: 324-337.
19. Entwistle VA, Watt IS, 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: 47-70.
20. Hutchinson AB. A Health Technology Assessment of HIV Counseling and Testing Technologies: Evidence of Effectiveness, Cost-Effectiveness and the Consumer Perspective [PhD]. USA; Georgia: Georgia State University, 2003.
21. Jolly K, Taylor R, Lip GY, Greenfield S, Raftery J, Mant J, et al. 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. Health Technology Assessment, 2007; 11: 1-118.
22. Kinter ET, Schmeding A, Rudolph I, dosReis S, Bridges JF. Identifying patient-relevant endpoints among individuals with schizophrenia: an application of patient-centered health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2009; 25: 35-41.
23. Lassen KO, Olsen J, Grinderslev E, Kruse F, Bjerrum M. Nutritional care of medical inpatients: a health technology assessment. BMC Health Services Research, 2006; 6: 7.
24. Nixon J, Nelson EA, Cranny G, Iglesias CP, Hawkins K, Cullum NA, et al. Pressure relieving support surfaces: a randomised evaluation. Health Technology Assessment, 2006; 10: 1-163.
25. Ratcliffe J, Longworth L. Investigating the structural reliability of a discrete choice experiment within health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2002; 18: 139-144.
26. Thomas KS, Keogh-Brown MR, Chalmers JR, Fordham RJ, Holland RC, Armstrong SJ, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of salicylic acid and cryotherapy for cutaneous warts. An economic decision model. Health Technology Assessment, 2006; 10. iii, ISSN 1366-965278.
27. Menon D, Stafinski T. Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: findings from a citizens' jury. Health Expectations, 2008; 11: 282-293.
28. Johanson R, Rigby C, Newburn M, Stewart M, Jones P. Suggestions in maternal and child health for the National Technology Assessment Programme: a consideration of consumer and professional priorities. The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, 2002; 122: 50-54.
29. Davies C, Wetherell M, Barnett E, Seymour-Smith S. Opening the box. Evaluating the Citizens Council of NICE. Report prepared for the National Coordinating Centre for Research Methodology, NHS Research and Development Program, Milton Keynes: The Open University, Marsh 2005.
30. Oliver S, Armes D, Gyte G. Evaluation of Public Influence on the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, 2006.
31. Oliver S, Milne R, Bradburn J, Buchanan P, Kerridge L, Walley T, et al. Involving consumers in a needs-led research programme: a pilot project. Health Expectations, 2001; 4: 18-28.
32. Meyer J. Qualitative research in health care. Using qualitative methods in health related action research. British Medical Journal, 2000; 320: 178-181.
33. Gagnon MP, Lepage-Savary D, Gagnon J, St-Pierre M, Simard C, Rhainds M, et al. Introducing patient perspective in health technology assessment at the local level. BMC Health Services Research, 2009; 9: 54.
34. Lavis J, Davies H, Oxman A, Denis JL, Golden-Biddle K, Ferlie E. Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 2005; 10 (Suppl. 1): 35-48.
35. Krueger RA. Is it a focus group? Tips on how to tell. Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing, 2006; 33: 363-366.
36. Gauvin FP, Abelson J, Giacomini M, Eyles J, Lavis JN. "It all depends": conceptualizing public involvement in the context of health technology assessment agencies. Social Science and Medicine, 2010; 70: 1518-1526.
37. NVivo 8. NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis Software. QSR International Pty Ltd, NVivo 8, 2008.
38. Huberman AM, Miles MB. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994.
39. Royle J, Oliver S. Consumer involvement in the health technology assessment program. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2004; 20: 493-497.
40. Stake RE. Qualitative case studies. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks; London; New Dehli: Sage Publications, 2005.