PUBLIC and PATIENT INVOLVEMENT in HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: A FRAMEWORK for ACTION

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 256-264

  Abelson, Julia ^a   Wagner, Frank ^b   DeJean, Deirdre ^a   Boesveld, Sarah ^a   Gauvin, Franςois Pierre ^c   Bean, Sally ^d   Axler, Renata ^e   Petersen, Stephen ^f   Baidoobonso, Shamara ^g   Pron, Gaylene ^f   Giacomini, Mita ^a   Lavis, John ^a  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d SUNNYBROOK RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR   (Canada)

^f Health Quality Ontario   (Canada)

^g CANCER CARE ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Framework; Health technology assessment; Patient involvement; Public involvement

Indexed keywords

HEALTH CARE;

FRAMEWORK; GOVERNMENT AGENCIES; GUIDING PRINCIPLES; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS; INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE; OPTIMAL APPROACHES; PATIENT INVOLVEMENT; PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT;

HEALTH;

CLINICAL STUDY; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; ONTARIO; ORGANIZATION; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; SYNTHESIS; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CANADA; COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PROCEDURES; PUBLIC OPINION; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY;

CANADA; COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION; HUMANS; ORGANIZATIONAL OBJECTIVES; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PUBLIC OPINION; SOCIAL VALUES; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84988701356     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462316000362     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Hailey D. Consumer involvement in health technology assessment. Edmonton, Canada: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research; 2005.
2. Hailey D, Werko S, Bakri R, et al. Involvement of consumers in health technology assessment activities by Inahta agencies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:79-83.
3. 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.
4. Bridges JF, Jones C. Patient-based health technology assessment: A vision of the future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:30-35.
5. Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Lepage-Savary D, et al. Introducing patients' and the public's perspectives to health technology assessment: A systematic review of international experiences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:31-42.
6. Menon D, Stafinski T. Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions. Expert Rev Pharma-coecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11:75-89.
7. Whitty JA. An international survey of the public engagement practices of health technology assessment organizations. Value Health. 2013;16:155-163.
8. Levin L, Goeree R, Sikich N, et al. Establishing a comprehensive continuum from an evidentiary base to policy development for health technologies: The Ontario experience. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:299-309.
9. Health Quality Ontario. Excellence Through Evidence 2016 [cited August 10, 2016]. http://www.hqontario.ca/Evidence-to-Improve-Care/Excellence-Through-Evidence
10. Public Engagement Subcommittee of the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee. Final Report. Toronto, ON: Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee; 2007.
11. OHTAC Public Engagement Subcommittee. Public engagement for health technology assessment at Health Quality Ontario-Final report from the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Commit-649 tee Public Engagement Subcommittee [Internet]. Toronto: 2015. http://www.hqontario.ca/Portals/0/documents/evidence/special-reports/report-subcommittee-20150407-en.pdf.
12. Bombard Y. Public engagement pilot study on point-of-care International Normalized Ratio (INR) monitoring devices. Toronto, Canada: Medical Advisory Secretariat, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care; 2009.
13. Bombard Y, Abelson J, Simeonov D, Gauvin FP. Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: A participatory approach. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73:135-144.
14. Abelson J, Bombard Y, Gauvin FP, Simeonov D, Boesveld S. Assessing the impacts of citizen deliberations on the health technology process. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:282-289.
15. Gauvin FP, Abelson J, Lavis J. Evidence brief: Strengthening public and patient engagement in health technology assessment in Ontario. Hamilton, Canada: McMaster Health Forum; May 8, 2014.
16. Gauvin FP, Lavis J. Dialogue summary: Strengthening public and patient engagement in health technology assessment in Ontario. Hamilton, Canada: McMaster Health Forum; May 8, 2014.
17. Hailey D, Nordwall M. Survey on the involvement of consumers in health technology assessment programs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:497-499.
18. Gauvin FP, Abelson J, Giacomini M, Eyles J, Lavis JN. "It all depends": Conceptualizing public involvement in the context of health technology assessment agencies. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70:1518-1526.
19. National Institute for Health Care Excellence. Patient and Public Involvement Programme 2014 [updated 20140/04/10/]. http://www.nice.org.uk/getinvolved/patientandpublicinvolvement/ppipinvolvementprogramme.jsp.
20. Washington Health Technology Assessment Program (Washington State). Health Technology Assessment Program 2014 [cited June 23, 2014]. http://www.hca.wa.gov/hta/Pages/index.aspx.
21. National Institute for Health Research. NIHR Evaluation Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre [cited June 23, 2014]. http://www.netscc. ac.uk.
22. Center for New Health Technology Assessment. Center for New Health Technology Assessment [cited June 23, 2014]. http://neca.re.kr/nHTA/eng/.
23. pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review. pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review [cited June 23, 2014]. http://www.pcodr.ca/.
24. Wynne B. Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science-Hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genet. 2006;9:211-220.
25. Abelson J, Eyles J. Public participation and citizen governance in the Canadian health system. In: Forest PG, McIntosh T, Marchildon G, eds. Changing health care in Canada: The Romanow Papers, Volume 2. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press; 2004.
26. Bovens M. Public Accountability. In: Ferlie E, Lynn LE, Pollitt C, eds. Oxford handbook of public management. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2007.
27. Chinitz D. Health technology assessment in four countries: Response from political science. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:55-60.
28. Coulter A, Ellins J. Effectiveness of strategies for informing, educating, and involving patients. BMJ. 2007;335:24-27.
29. Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J, et al. Patients' perspectives in health tech-nology assessment: A route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:334-340.
30. DeJean D, Giacomini M, Schwartz L, Miller FA. Ethics in Canadian health technology assessment: A descriptive review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:463-469.
31. Lehoux P. The problem of health technology: Policy implications for modern health care systems. New York, NY: Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group; 2006.
32. Drummond M, Tarricone R, Torbica A. Assessing the added value of health technologies: Reconciling different perspectives. Value Health. 2013;16(Suppl):S7-S13.
33. Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Gagnon J, et al. Introducing the patient's perspective in hospital health technology assessment (HTA): The views of HTA producers, hospital managers and patients. Health Expect. 2014;17:888-900.
34. National Institute for Health Research. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme [cited June 23, 2014]. http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta.
35. Adelaide Health Technology Assessment Centre. About Adelaide Health Technology Assessment (AHTA) 2014 [cited June 23, 2014]. http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ahta/.
36. Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care. SBU-Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment [cited June 23, 2014]. http://www.sbu.se/en/.
37. KCE-Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre. KCE-Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, [cited June 23, 2014]. http://kce.fgov.be.
38. Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures-Surgical (ASERNIP-S). Mission Statement [cited June 23, 2014]. http://www.surgeons.org/for-health-professionals/audits-and-surgical-research/asernip-s.
39. Health Evidence Review Commission (Oregon). Health Technology Assessment Subcommittee Meeting Archives [cited June 23, 2014]. http://www.oregon.gov/oha/herc/Pages/htasArchive.aspx.
40. National Institute for Health Research. Horizon Scanning Centre [cited June 23, 2014]. http://www.hsc.nihr.ac.uk.
41. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Medical Services Advisory Committee [cited June 23, 2014]. http://www.msac.gov.au/.
42. Healthcare Improvement Scotland. Healthcare Improvement Scotland [cited August 10, 2016]. http://healthcareimprovementscotland.org/.
43. New Zealand National Health Committee. New Zealand National Health Committee [cited June 23, 20143]. http://nhc.health.govt.nz/home.
44. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. CADTH 2014 [cited June 23, 2014]. http://www.cadth.ca/en/products/cdr/patient-group-input/.
45. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2015 [updated July 21, 2015]. http://www.ahrq.gov/.
46. The Health Council of the Netherlands. 2015 [updated July 21, 2015]. http://gezondheidsraad.nl/en.
47. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Call for Public Comment 2014 [updated 20140/04/22/]. http://www.msac.gov.au/internet/msac/publishing.nsf/Content/surveys-lp.
48. Oliver S, Armes DG, Gyte G. Public involvement in setting a national research agenda: A mixed methods evaluation. Patient. 2009;2:179-190.
49. Jones M, Einsiedel E. Institutional policy learning and public consultation: The Canadian xenotransplantation experience. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73:655-662.
50. Chambers D, Wilson PM, Thompson CA, et al. Maximizing the impact of systematic reviews in health care decision making: A systematic scoping review of knowledge-translation resources. Milbank Q. 2011;89: 131-156.
51. Moran R, Davidson P. An uneven spread: A review of public involvement in the National Institute of Health Research's Health Technology Assessment program. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:343-347.
52. Davies C, Wetherell M, Barnett E. Citizens at the centre: Deliberative participation in health care decisions. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press; 2006.
53. Gauvin FP, Abelson J, Giacomini M, Eyles J, Lavis JN. Moving cautiously: Public involvement and the health technology assessment community. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:43-49.
54. Health Technology Assessment International. Patient and Citizen In-volvement 2014 [updated 20140/04/10/]. http://www.htai.org/index. php?id=545.
55. Rowe G, Frewer LJ. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Human Values. 2005;30:251-290.
56. Carman KL, Heeringa JW, Heil SKR, et al. Public deliberation to elicit input on health topics: Findings from a literature review. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013.
57. Boivin A, Lehoux P, Lacombe R, Burgers J, Grol R. Involving patients in setting priorities for healthcare improvement: A cluster randomized trial. Implement Sci. 2014;9:24.
58. Health Quality Ontario. Excellence through evidence: Roadmap for evidence-based recommendations and quality standards. [Internet]. Toronto: 2015. http://www.hqontario.ca/Portals/0/Documents/evidence/reports/excellence-through-evidence-1511-en.pdf.