Hostname: page-component-857557d7f7-v2cwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-24T12:35:01.271Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A framework for action to improve patient and public involvement in health technology assessment

Part of: Special Collection - Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2021

Aline Silveira Silva Open the ORCID record for Aline Silveira Silva [Opens in a new window] ,
Karen Facey Open the ORCID record for Karen Facey [Opens in a new window] ,
Stirling Bryan Open the ORCID record for Stirling Bryan [Opens in a new window]  and
Dayani Galato Open the ORCID record for Dayani Galato [Opens in a new window]
Aline Silveira Silva*
Affiliation:
University of Brasilia, Campus Universitário, s/n, Centro Metropolitano, Brasilia, Distrito Federal, Brazil
Karen Facey
Affiliation:
Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, NINE Edinburgh BioQuarter, 9 Little France Road, Edinburgh, UK
Stirling Bryan
Affiliation:
School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Dayani Galato
Affiliation:
University of Brasilia, Campus Universitário, s/n, Centro Metropolitano, Brasilia, Distrito Federal, Brazil
*
Author for correspondence: Aline Silveira Silva, E-mail: alinefarunb@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in the Brazilian Health Technology Assessment (HTA) process occurs in response to a legislative mandate for “social participation.” This resulted in some limited patient participation activities, and, therefore, a more systematic approach was needed. The study describes the development of a suggested framework for action to improve PPI in HTA.

Methods

This work used formal methodology to develop a PPI framework based on three-phase mixed-methods research with desktop review of Brazilian PPI activities in HTA; workshop, survey, and interviews with Brazilian stakeholders; and a rapid review of international practices to enact effective patient involvement. Patient partners reviewed the draft framework.

Results

According to patient group representatives, their involvement in the Brazilian HTA process is important but could be improved. Different stakeholders perceived barriers, identified values, and made suggestions for improvement, such as expansion of communication, capacity building, and transparency, to support more meaningful patient involvement. The international practices identified opportunities for earlier, more active, and collaborative PPI during all HTA stages, based on values and principles that are relevant for Brazilian patients and the public. These findings were synthesized to design a framework that defines and systematizes actions to support PPI in Brazil, highlighting the importance of evaluating these strategies.

Conclusions

Since the publication of this framework, some of its suggestions are being implemented in the Brazilian HTA process to improve PPI. We encourage other HTA organizations to consider a systematic and planned approach with regular evaluation when pursuing or strengthening involvement practices.

Keywords

Health technology assessmentPatient involvementPublic involvementFramework

Information

Type
Method
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , 2022 , e8
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Banta, D. Health technology assessment in Latin America and the Caribbean. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:253–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pichon-Riviere, A, Soto, NC, Augustovski, FA, García Martí, S, Sampietro-Colom, L. Evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias para la toma de decisiones en Latinoamérica: Principios de buenas prácticas. Rev Panam Salud Pública. 2017;41:1.Google Scholar
Silva, AS. A participação social no processo de incorporação de tecnologias em Saúde no Brasil [social participation in the health technologies incorporation in Brazil] [internet]. University of Brasilia; 2020. Available from: https://repositorio.unb.br/handle/10482/39520.Google Scholar
Street, J, Stafinski, T, Lopes, E, Menon, D. Defining the role of the public in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and HTA-informed decision-making processes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;36:87–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pichon-Riviere, A, Soto, N, Augustovski, F, Sampietro-Colom, L. Stakeholder involvement in the health technology assessment process in Latin America. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2018;34:248–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hahn, DL, Hoffmann, AE, Felzien, M, LeMaster, JW, Xu, J, Fagnan, LJ. Tokenism in patient engagement. Fam Pract. 2017;34:290–5.Google ScholarPubMed
Hamilton, CB, Hoens, AM, Backman, CL, McKinnon, AM, McQuitty, S, English, K, et al. An empirically based conceptual framework for fostering meaningful patient engagement in research. Heal Expect. 2018;21:396–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;32:256–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenhalgh, T, Hinton, L, Finlay, T, Macfarlane, A, Fahy, N, Clyde, B, et al. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co-design pilot. Heal Expect. 2019;22:785–801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silva, AS, de Sousa, MSA, da Silva, EV, Galato, D. Social participation in the health technology incorporation process into unified health system. Rev Saude Publica. 2019;53:1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Braun, V, Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boivin, A, L'Espérance, A, Gauvin, FP, Dumez, V, Macaulay, AC, Lehoux, P, et al. Patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making: A systematic review of evaluation tools. Heal Expect. 2018;21:1075–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wale, JL, Scott, AM, Bertelsen, N, Meade, N. Strengthening international patient advocacy perspectives on patient involvement in HTA within the HTAi patient and citizen involvement interest group – Commentary. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3:1–10. Available from: doi:10.1186/s40900-016-0053-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gagnon, M-P, 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;27:31–42. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21262085CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dipankui, MT, Gagnon, MP, Desmartis, M, Légaré, F, Piron, F, Gagnon, J, et al. Evaluation of patient involvement in a health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31:166–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weeks, L, Polisena, J, Scott, AM, Holtorf, AP, Staniszewska, S, Facey, K. Evaluation of patient and public involvement initiatives in health technology assessment: A survey of international agencies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33:715–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rowe, G, Frewer, LJ. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2005;30:251–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryan, S, Davis, J, Broesch, J, Doyle-Waters, MM, Lewis, S, Mcgrail, K. Choosing your partner for the PROM: A review of evidence on patient-reported outcome measures for use in primary and community care. Healthc Policy. 2014;10:38–51.Google ScholarPubMed
Single, ANV, Facey, K, Livingstone, H, Silva, AS. Stories of patient involvement impact in health technology assessments: A discussion paper. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2019;35:266–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Facey, K, Boivin, A, Gracia, J, Hansen, HP, Lo Scalzo, A, Mossman, J, et al. Patients’ perspectives in health technology assessment: A route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:334–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitty, JA. An international survey of the public engagement practices of health technology assessment organizations. Value Health 2013;16:155–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gagnon, MP, Tantchou Dipankui, M, Poder, TG, Payne-Gagnon, J, Mbemba, G, Beretta, V. Patient and public involvement in health technology assessment: Update of a systematic review of international experiences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2021;37:1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Facey, K. As health technology assessment evolves so must its approach to patient involvement. J Comp Eff Res. 2019;8:549–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Facey, KM, Developing the mosaic of patient participation in HTA. In: Facey, KM, Hansen, HP, Single, ANV, editors. Patient involvement in health technology assessment. Singapore: Springer Nature; 2017, 56–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, AS, Petramale, CA, Rabelo, RB, Santos, VCC. Brazil. In: Facey, KM, Hansen, HP, Single, ANV, editors. Patient involvement in health technology assessment. Singapore: Springer Nature; 2017. p. 245.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Silva et al. supplementary material

Silva et al. supplementary material

Download Silva et al. supplementary material(File)
File 59.8 KB