Patient involvement in HTA: What added value?

Pharmaceuticals Policy and Law

Volumn 13, Issue 3-4, 2011, Pages 245-251

  Facey, K M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Patient participation; Qualitative research; Rare diseases; Technology assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 85013622827     PISSN: 13892827     EISSN: 2210495X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3233/PPL-2011-0329     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. A. Single, Biotext Pty, HTAi consumer and patient glossary: a beginner’s guide to words used in health technology assessment, Version: 1, 2009. www.htai.org/fileadmin/HTAi Files/ISG/Patient Involvement/Glossary/HTAiPa tientAndConsumerGlossaryOctober2009 01.pdf (Accessed 18May 2011).
2. K. Facey, A. Boivin, J. Gracia et al., Patients’ perspectives in HTA: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation, Int J Tech Ass in Health Care 26 (2010), 334-340.
3. HTAi, Strategic Plan 2009-2013. www.htai.org/fileadmin/HTAi Files/StrategicPlan2009To2013 Materials/HTAi2009To2013Strateg icPlan.pdf (Accessed, 18 May 2011).
4. M.P.T. de Wit, S.E. Berlo, G.J. Aanerud et al., European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for the inclusion of patient representatives in scientific projects, Ann Rheum Dis (2011): doi: 10.1136/ard.2010.135129.
5. Office of Communications, Guidance for Industry - Patient Reported Outcomes Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labelling Claims, 2009, US Food and Drug Administration.
6. S. Staniszewska. Patient important outcomes, To be published, 2011.
7. National Institute for Clinical Excellence, Guidance on the Use of Beta Interferon and Glatiramer Acetate for the Treatment ofMultiple Sclerosis - Technology AppraisalNo. 32, 2002. http://guidance. nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11441/32290/32290.pdf (Accessed 21 May 2011).
8. G. Kobelt, J. Berg, P. Lindgren et al., Costs and quality of life of patients with multiple sclerosis in Europe, J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 77 (2006), 918-926.
9. F.B. Kristensen and H. Sigmund, Health Technology Assessment Handbook. Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment, National board of health, 2007.
10. B. Hofmann, Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology Assessment, Int J Tech Assess Health Care 21 (2005), 312-318.
11. Health Equality Europe, Understanding Health Technology Assessment, 2008 www.htai.org/filead min/HTAi Files/ISG/PatientInvolvement/EffectiveInvolvement/HEEGuideToHTAforPatientsEngli sh.pdf Accessed 18 May 2011.
12. K. Malterud, Qualitative research: standards, challenges and guidelines, Lancet 358 (2001), 483-488.
13. J. Street, A. Braunack-Mayer, K. Facey et al., Virtual community consultation? Using the literature and weblogs to link community perspectives and health technology assessment, Health Expect 11 (2008), 189-200.
14. D. Wong-Rieger (Consumer Advocare Network), Using Social Media to Obtain Patient Opinions and Feedback, HTAi panel presentation (2010).
15. Scottish Executive Health Department, Delivering for Health (2005), Scottish Executive, Crown Copyright. www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/76169/0018996.pdf.
16. European Parliament and European Council, Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 on medicinal products for paediatric use, OJEU L378 (2006), 1-19.
17. K. Lampe, M. Mäkelä and M.V. Garrido, The HTA Core Model: A novel method for producing and reporting health technology assessments, IJTAHC 24 (2009) S2, 9-20.