Why patients should be involved in health technology assessment

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 1-4

  Wale, Janet ^a   Scott, Anna Mae ^b   Hofmann, Bjorn ^c   Garner, Sarah ^d   Low, Eric ^e   Sansom, Lloyd ^f  

^a Citizen Involvement in HTA Interest Group   (United Kingdom)

^b Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine Centre for Research in Evidence Based Practice Bond Univer   (Australia)

^c NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

^d NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE   (United Kingdom)

^e University of South Australia ^*  (United Kingdom)

^f UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Decision making; Health technology assessment; Patient experience; Patient involvement; Patient perspectives; Patient values

Indexed keywords

HEALTH CARE; KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS;

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS; PATIENT EXPERIENCES; PATIENT INVOLVEMENT; PATIENT PERSPECTIVES; PATIENT VALUES;

DECISION MAKING;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CASE REPORT; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE BASE; MALE; MORALITY; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATIENT PARTICIPATION;

HUMANS; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 85020824321     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462317000241     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Porter ME. What is value in health care? N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2477-2481.
2. HTAi Patient and Citizen Involvement in HTA Glossary. http://www. htai.org/fileadmin/HTAi-Files/ISG/PatientInvolvement/v2-files/Resource/PCISG-Resource-ENGLISH-PatientandConsumerGlossary-Oct09.pdf (accessed June 10, 2016).
3. Banta D. What is technology assessment? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:7-9.
4. Gauvin F-P, 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.
5. Wortley S,Wale J, Grainger D,Murphy P.Moving beyond the rhetoric of patient input in health technology assessment deliberations. Aust Health Rev. 2016. May 26. doi:10.1071/AH15216. [Epub ahead of print].
6. Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J, et al. Patients' perspectives in health technology assessment: A route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:334-340.
7. 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.
8. Berglas S, Jutai L, MacKean G, Weeks L. Patients' perspectives can be integrated in health technology assessments: An exploratory analysis of CADTH Common Drug Review. Research Involvement and Engagement. 2016;2:21.
9. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). http://www.nice.org.uk/about/nice-communities/public-involvement (accessed June 7, 2016).
10. Scottish Medicines Consortium. https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/Public-Involvement (accessed June 7, 2016).
11. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). https://www.cadth.ca/about-cadth/what-we-do/products-services/cdr/patient-input) (accessed June 7, 2016).
12. pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review. https://www.cadth.ca/pcodr/patient-input-And-feedback (accessed June 7, 2016).
13. Hailey D, Werkö 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.
14. Kreis J, Schmidt H. Public engagement in health technology assessment and coverage decisions: A study of experiences in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2013;38:89-122. doi:10.1215/03616878-1898812.
15. Dirksen CD. The use of research evidence on patient preferences in health care decision-making: Issues, controversies and moving forward. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconom Outcomes Res. 2014;14:785-794.
16. World Health Organization. Declaration of Alma-Ata 1978. http://who. int/publications/almaata-declaration-en.pdf (accessed June 7, 2016).
17. Sixty-seventh World Health Assembly WHA67.23 Agenda item 15.7, 24 May 2014. Health intervention and technology assessment in support of universal health coverage. http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf-files/WHA67/A67-R23-en.pdf (accessed June 7, 2016).
18. Staley K, Doherty C. It's not evidence, it's insight: Bringing patients' perspectives into health technology appraisal at NICE. Research Involvement and Engagement. 2016;2:4.
19. Drummond M, Tarricone R, Torbica A. Assessing the added value of health technologies: Reconciling different perspectives. Value Health. 2013;16:S7-13.
20. Towse A, Barnsley P. Approaches to identifying, measuring, and aggregating elements of value. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:360-364.
21. Hofmann B, Cleemput I, Bond K, et al. Revealing and acknowledging value judgments in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;3:579-586.
22. Henshall C, Schuller T; HTAi Policy Forum. Health technology assessment, value-based decision making, and innovation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:353-359.
23. NICE Citizens Council Meeting Report 8-9 May 2014. What are the societal values that need to be considered when making decisions about trade-offs between equity and efficiency? http://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/Get-involved/Citizens-Council/Reports/cc-report17-equityefficiency. pdf (accessed June 10, 2016).
24. 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. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:35-41.
25. Greenhalgh T, Snow R, Ryan S, Rees S, Salisbury H. Six 'biases' against patients and carers in evidence-based medicine. BMCMed. 2015;13:200. doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0437-x.
26. Anderson M, McCleary KK. On the path to a science of patient input. Sci Transl Med. 2016;8:336ps11.
27. Johnson DS, Bush MT, Brandzel S, Wernli KJ. The patient voice in research-Evolution of a role. Research Involvement and Education. 2016;2:6.
28. Hansen HP, Draborg E, Kristensen FB. Exploring qualitative research syntheses: The role of patients' perspectives in health policy design and decision-making. Patient. 2011;4:143-152.
29. Tjørnhøj-Thomsen T, Ploug Hansen H. Knowledge in health technology assessment: Who, what, how? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:324-329.
30. CADTH. Patient involvement in scientific advice. https://www.cadth.ca/scientific-Advice/patient-involvement (accessed June 10, 2016).
31. Low E. Potential for patients and patient-driven organizations to improve evidence for health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31:226-227.
32. Basch E. New frontiers in patient-reported outcomes: Adverse event reporting, comparative effectiveness, and quality assessment. Annu Rev Med. 2014;65:307-317.
33. Husereau D, Henshall C, Jivraj J. Adaptive approaches to licensing, health technology assessment, and introduction of drugs and devices. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30:1-9.