It’s not evidence, it’s insight: Bringing patients’ perspectives into health technology appraisal at NICE

Research Involvement and Engagement

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Staley, Kristina ^a   Doherty, Caroline ^a  

^a TwoCan Associates   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Evidence; Health technology appraisal; Health technology assessment; Health technology assessment committees; Patient and public involvement; Public involvement

Indexed keywords

EID: 85014863580     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20567529     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s40900-016-0018-y     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Coulter A. Perspectives on health technology assessment: response from the patient's perspective. Int J Technol Assess. 2004;20(1):92–6.
2. Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J, Hansen HP, Lo S, Mossman J, et al. Patients' perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess. 2010;26(3):334–40.
3. Gagnon M, Desmartis M, Lepage-Savary D, Gagnon J, Rhainds M, Lemieux R, et al. Introducing patients' and the public's perspectives to health technology assessment: A systematic review of international experiences. Int J Technol Assess. 2011;27(1):31–42.
4. Moreira T. Understanding the role of patient organizations in health technology assessment. Health Expect. 2015; 18(6):3349–57.
5. Whitty JA. An international survey of the public engagement practices of health technology assessment organizations. Value Health. 2013;16(1):155–63.
6. NICE. Guide to the processes of technology appraisal. NICE. 2014. https://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg19/chapter/foreword. Accessed 16 Sept 2015.
7. NICE. Develop NICE guidance. NICE. 2015. http://www.nice.org.uk/about/nice-communities/public-involvement/develop-nice-guidance. Accessed 16 Sept 2015.
8. Braun V, Clarke V. Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. London: Sage; 2013.
9. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.
10. Staley K. Exploring impact:Public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. INVOLVE. 2009. http://www.invo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Involve_Exploring_Impactfinal28.10.09.pdf. Accessed 16 Sept 2015
11. Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, et al. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2014;17(5):637–50.
12. Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, Wang Z, Nabhan M, Shippee N, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:89.
13. Shippee ND, Domecq Garces JP, Prutsky Lopez GJ, Wang Z, Elraiyah TA, Nabhan M, et al. Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework. Health Expect. 2013. doi:10.1111/hex. 12090.
14. The Evidence Library. INVOLVE. 2015 http://www.invo.org.uk/resource-centre/evidence-library/Accessed 16 Sept 2015.
15. de Wit M, Abma TA, Koelewijn-van Loon M, Collins S, Kirwan J. What has been the effect on trial outcome assessments of a decade of patient participation on OMERACT. J Rheumatol. 2014;41(1):177–84.
16. Broerse JE, Zweekhorst M, van Rensen A, de Haan M. Involving burn survivors in agenda setting on burn research: An added value? Burns. 2010;36(2):217–31.
17. Davila-Seijo D, Hernandez-Martin A, Morcillo-Makow E, de Lucas R, Dominguez E, Romero N, et al. Prioritisation of therapy uncertainties in Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa: where should research direct to? an example of priority setting partnership in very rare disorders. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2013;8:61.
18. LLoyd K, White J. Democratizing clinical research. Nature. 2011;474:277–8.
19. Crowe S, Fenton M, Hall M, Cowan K, Chalmers I. Patients’, clinicians’ and the research communities’ priorities for treatment research: there is an important mismatch. Res Involvement Engagement. 2015;1:2.
20. Kinter E, Schmeding A, dosReis S, Bridges J. Identifying patient-relevant endpoints among individuals with schizophrenia: An application of patient-centred health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess. 2009;25(1): 35–41.
21. Lee C, Dominik R, Levin C, Barry M, Cosenza C, O'Connor A, et al. Development of instruments to measure the quality of breast cancer treatment decisions. Health Expect. 2010;13(3):258–72.
22. Mayer M. Seeking what matters: Patients as research partners. Patient. 2012;5(2):71–4.
23. Mulley A, Trimble C, Elwyn G. Patient preferences matter. The King's Fund. 2012. http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/patients-preferences-matter. Accessed 16 Sept 2015
24. Rose D, Evans J, Sweeney A, Wykes T. A model for developing outcome measures from the perspectives of mental health service users. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2011;23(1):41–6.
25. Vale C, Tierney J, Spera N, Whelan A, Nightingale A, Hanley B. Evaluation of patient involvement in a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data in cervical cancer treatment. Syst Rev. 2012;1:23.