Skip to main content
×
×
Home

EVALUATION OF PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INITIATIVES IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: A SURVEY OF INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES

  • Laura Weeks (a1), Julie Polisena (a2), Anna Mae Scott (a3), Anke-Peggy Holtorf (a4), Sophie Staniszewska (a5) and Karen Facey (a6)...
Abstract

Objectives: Although there is increased awareness of patient and public involvement (PPI) among health technology assessment (HTA) organizations, evaluations of PPI initiatives are relatively scarce. Our objective as members of Health Technology Assessment International's (HTAi's) Patient and Citizen Involvement Group (PCIG) was to advance understanding of the range of evaluation strategies adopted by HTA organizations and their potential usefulness.

Methods: In March 2016, a survey was sent to fifty-four HTA organizations through the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) and contacts of members of HTAi's PCIG. Respondents were asked about their organizational structure; how patients and members of the public are involved; whether and how PPI initiatives have been evaluated, and, if so, which facilitators and challenges to evaluation were found and how results were used and disseminated.

Results: Fifteen (n = 15) programs from twelve countries responded (response rate 27.8 percent) that involved patients (14/15) and members of the public (10/15) in HTA activities. Seven programs evaluated their PPI activities, including participant satisfaction (5/7), process (5/7) and impact evaluations (4/7). Evaluation results were used to improve PPI activities, identify education and training needs, and direct strategic priorities. Facilitators and challenges revolved around the need for stakeholder buy-in, sufficient resources, senior leadership, and including patients in evaluations.

Conclusions: A small but diverse set of HTA organizations evaluate their PPI activities using a range of strategies that reflect the range of rationales and approaches to PPI in HTA. It will be important for HTA organizations to draw on evaluation theories and methods.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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. 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.

      EVALUATION OF PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INITIATIVES IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: A SURVEY OF INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES
      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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      EVALUATION OF PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INITIATIVES IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: A SURVEY OF INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES
      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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      EVALUATION OF PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INITIATIVES IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: A SURVEY OF INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
Hide All
1. 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;29:282289.
2. 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. Res Involve Engag. 2016;7:2.
3. Cleemput, I, Christiaens, W, Kohn, L, Leonard, C, Daue, F, Denis, A. Acceptability and perceived benefits and risks of public and patient involvement in health care policy: A Delphi survey in Belgian stakeholders. Value Health. 2015;18:477483.
4. Dipankui, MT, Gagnon, MP, Desmartis, M, Legare, F, Piron, F, Gagnon, J, et al. Evaluation of patient involvement in a health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31:166170.
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 [Epub ahead of print].
6. Lopes, E, Street, J, Carter, D, Merlin, T. Involving patients in health technology funding decisions: Stakeholder perspectives on processes used in Australia. Health Expect. 2016;19:331344.
7. Menon, D, Stafinski, T. Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11:7589.
8. Hailey, D, Werko, S, Bakri, R, Cameron, A, Gohlen, B, Myles, S, et al. Involvement of consumers in health technology assessment activities by INAHTA agencies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29: 7983.
9. 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: 15181526.
10. Gagnon, MP, Desmartis, M, Lepage-Savary, D, Gagnon, J, St-Pierre, M, Rhainds, M, 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;27:3142.
11. Whitty, JA. An international survey of the public engagement practices of health technology assessment organizations. Value Health. 2013;16:155163.
12. Abelson, J, Wagner, F, DeJean, D, Boesveld, S, Gauvin, FP, Bean, S, et al. Public and patient involvement in health technology assessment: A framework for action. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2016;32:256264.
13. Lopes, E, Street, J, Carter, D, Merlin, T. Involving patients in health technology funding decisions: Stakeholder perspectives on processes used in Australia. Health Expect. 2016;19:331344.
14. Oliver, S, Milne, R, Bradburn, J, Buchanan, P, Kerridge, L, Walley, T, et al. Involving consumers in a needs-led research programme: A pilot project. Health Expect. 2001;4:1828.
15. Hailey, D, Nordwall, M. Survey on the involvement of consumers in health technology assessment programs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:497499.
16. Hailey, D, Werko, S, Bakri, R, Cameron, A, Gohlen, B, Myles, S, et al. Involvement of consumers in the HTA activities of INAHTA members: Report on a survey [Internet]. Edmonton, AB: INAHTA; 2011. http://www.inahta.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/INAHTA_Survey_Consumer-Involvement_2011.pdf (accessed January 10, 2017).
17. Patient Involvement and Education Working Group. Good practice examples of patient and public involvement in health technology assessment [Internet]. Edmonton, AB: HTAi; 2015. www.htai.org/fileadmin/HTAi_Files/ISG/PatientInvolvement/EffectiveInvolvement/Good_Practice_Examples_Feb_2015.doc (accessed January 10, 2017).
18. Staniszewska, S, Brett, J, Mockford, C, Barber, R. The GRIPP checklist: Strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:391399.
19. Staniszewska, S. Patient and public involvement in health services and health research: A brief overview of evidence, policy and activity. J Res Nurs. 2009;14:295298.
20. OHTAC Public Engagement Subcommittee. Public engagement for health technology assessment at Health Quality Ontario—final report from the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee Public Engagement Subcommittee [Internet]. Toronto, ON: Queen's Printer for Ontario; 2015. http://www.hqontario.ca/Portals/0/documents/evidence/special-reports/report-subcommittee-20150407-en.pdf (accessed August 15, 2016).
21 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;17:637650.
22. Brett, J, Staniszewska, S, Mockford, C, Herron-Marx, S, Hughes, J, Tysall, C, et al. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. Patient. 2014;7:387395.
23. Panel on Research Ethics [Internet]. Ottawa (ON): Government of Canada. TCPS 2 (2014)— the latest edition of Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans; 2014. http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/tcps2-eptc2/Default/ (accessed January 10, 2017).
24. Amis, L, Livingstone, H. 605. The views of patients and carers involved in the development of NICE technology appraisals [Internet]. Abstract presented at: HTA in integrated care for a patient cenetred system. 9th HTAi Annual meeting; 2012; Bilbao (ES). http://www.htai.org/fileadmin/HTAi_Files/Conferences/2012/2012_HTAi_Bilbao_Oral_Presentations.pdf (accessed August 11, 2017).
25. Amis, L, Livingstone, H. Increasing visibility of patient, carer and citizen involvement in HTAs – An evaluation of the ‘lay leads’ pilot project at NICE [Internet]. Abstract presented at: HTA in integrated care for a patient centered system. 9th HTAi Annual meeting; 2012; Bilbao, ES. http://www.htai.org/fileadmin/HTAi_Files/Conferences/2012/2012_HTAi_Bilbao_Poster_Presentations.pdf (accessed August 11, 2017).
26. CADTH patient input process review: Findings and recommendations [PowerPoint Presentation on the Internet]. Montreal, QC: SECOR; 2013. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/2012_SECOR_Patient-Input-Review_e.pdf (accessed August 15, 2016).
27. Patton, MQ. Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing; 1997.
28. Hare, J, Guetterman, T. Evaluability assessment: Clarifying organizational support and data availability. J Multidiscip Eval. 2014;10:925.
29. Facey, K, Hansen, HP, Single, ANV, eds. Patient involvement in health technology assessment. Singapore: Springer ADIS; 2017.
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

Weeks et al supplementary material
Weeks et al supplementary material 1

 Word (27 KB)
27 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 107
Total number of PDF views: 249 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 474 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 10th November 2017 - 22nd April 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.