Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Choosing health technology assessment and systematic review topics: The development of priority-setting criteria for patients’ and consumers’ interests

  • Hilda Bastian (a1), Fülöp Scheibler (a2), Marco Knelangen (a2), Beate Zschorlich (a2), Mona Nasser (a3) and Andreas Waltering (a2)...
Abstract

Background: The Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) was established in 2003 by the German parliament. Its legislative responsibilities are health technology assessment, mostly to support policy making and reimbursement decisions. It also has a mandate to serve patients’ interests directly, by assessing and communicating evidence for the general public.

Objectives: To develop a priority-setting framework based on the interests of patients and the general public.

Methods: A theoretical framework for priority setting from a patient/consumer perspective was developed. The process of development began with a poll to determine level of lay and health professional interest in the conclusions of 124 systematic reviews (194 responses). Data sources to identify patients’ and consumers’ information needs and interests were identified.

Results: IQWiG's theoretical framework encompasses criteria for quality of evidence and interest, as well as being explicit about editorial considerations, including potential for harm. Dimensions of “patient interest” were identified, such as patients’ concerns, information seeking, and use. Rather than being a single item capable of measurement by one means, the concept of “patients’ interests” requires consideration of data and opinions from various sources.

Conclusions: The best evidence to communicate to patients/consumers is right, relevant and likely to be considered interesting and/or important to the people affected. What is likely to be interesting for the community generally is sufficient evidence for a concrete conclusion, in a common condition. More research is needed on characteristics of information that interest patients and consumers, methods of evaluating the effectiveness of priority setting, and methods to determine priorities for disinvestment.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Choosing health technology assessment and systematic review topics: The development of priority-setting criteria for patients’ and consumers’ interests
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Choosing health technology assessment and systematic review topics: The development of priority-setting criteria for patients’ and consumers’ interests
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Choosing health technology assessment and systematic review topics: The development of priority-setting criteria for patients’ and consumers’ interests
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

2.R Baltussen , L. Niessen Priority setting of health interventions: The need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Resourc Alloc. 2006;4:14.

3.C Bartlett , J Sterne , M. Egger What is newsworthy? Longitudinal study of the reporting of medical research in two British newspapers. BMJ. 2002;325:8184.

7.K Dickersin , E Ssemanda , C Marshall , D. Rennie What do the JAMA editors say when they discuss manuscripts that they are considering for publication? Developing a schema for categorizing the content of editorial discussion. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:44.

8.K Douw , H. Vondeling Selecting new health technologies for evaluation: Can clinical experts predict which new anticancer drugs will impact Danish health care? Soc Sci Med. 2007;64:283286.

9.FP Gauvin , J Abelson , M Giacomini , J Eyles , JN. Lavis “It all depends”: Conceptualizing public involvement in the context of health technology assessment agencies. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70:15181526.

10.RB Haynes , C Cotoi , J Holland , Second-order peer review of the medical literature for clinical practitioners. JAMA. 2006;295:18011808.

11.D Husereau , M Boucher , H. Noorani Priority setting for health technology at CADTH. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;26:341347.

12. HZ Noorani , DR Husereau , R. Boudreau Priority setting for health technology assessments: A systematic review of current practical approaches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:310315.

13.S Oliver , L Clarke-Jones , R Rees , Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: Developing an evidence-based approach. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:15.

15.AD Oxman , GH. Guyatt Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:12711278.

17.J Royle , S. Oliver Consumer involvement in the health technology assessment program. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:493497.

18.LM Sabik , RK. Lie Priority setting in health care: Lessons from the experiences of eight countries. Int J Equity Health. 2008;7:4.

20.B Zschorlich , M Knelangen , H. Bastian The development of health information with the involvement of consumers at the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). Gesundheitswesen. 2011;73:423429.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary Materials

Bastian et al. supplementary material
Supplementary tables

 Word (51 KB)
51 KB