Skip to main content
×
Home

Health technology assessment use and dissemination by patient and consumer groups: Why and how?

  • Julie Fattal (a1) and Pascale Lehoux (a1)
Abstract

Objectives: Although increasing effort is being devoted to developing strategies to increase knowledge transfer and the uptake of health technology assessment (HTA) by various stakeholders, very little is known about the utilization and dissemination of HTA findings by patient and consumer organizations. The goal of this study is to understand how and why patient and consumer organizations use HTA findings within their organizations, and what factors influence how and when they communicate their findings to members or other organizations.

Methods: We examined the use and dissemination of four controversial HTA reports by sixteen patient and consumer organizations in Ontario and Quebec. We gathered data from semistructured interviews conducted between December 2006 and April 2007.

Results: Although HTA findings are often used by the patient and consumer organizations, key differences were observed in exactly how the four HTA reports were used. Three types of use (instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic) are reported and illustrated. We highlight the importance of the organization's mission and knowledge base in explaining the types of use observed.

Conclusions: We contend that the use and dissemination of HTA reports by specific groups could help in widening the debate around controversial health technologies. The implications and opportunities for HTA agencies relate to the following: (i) identification of “lay” organizations that could help in disseminating results; (ii) acknowledgement of a “lay” audience for HTA findings; (iii) strategic inclusion of advocacy groups during the assessment process for highly controversial technologies; and (iv) contribution of these organizations to the push efforts of knowledge transfer.

Copyright
References
Hide All
1. Abelson J, Eyles J, McLeod CB, et al. Does deliberation make a difference? Results from a citizens panel study of health goals priority setting. Health Policy. 2003;66:95106.
2. AETMIS. The use of electroconvulsive therapy in Québec. Report prepared by Reiner Banken. Montreal: Agence d'évaluation des technologies et des modes d'interventions en santé; 2002:xvii96.
3. AETMIS. First-trimester prenatal screening for Down syndrome and other aneuploidies. Report prepared by Alicia Framarin. Montreal: Agence d'évaluation des technologies et des modes d'interventions en santé; 2003:xxii81.
4. Barbot J. How to build an “active” patient? The work of AIDS associations in France. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62:538551.
5. Battista RN, Hodge MJ. The existing paradigm of health technology assessment: Reflections for the millennium. CMAJ. 1999;160:14641467.
6. Brown P, Zavestoski S. Social movements in health: An introduction. Sociol Health Illn. 2004;26:679694.
7. Caron-Flinterman JF, Broerse JE, Bunders JF. The experiential knowledge of patients: A new resource for biomedical research? Soc Sci Med. 2005;60:25752584.
8. Eisenberg JM. Ten lessons for evidence-based technology assessment. JAMA. 1999;282:18651868.
9. Entwistle VA, Renfrew MJ, Yearley S, Forrester J, Lamont T. Lay perspectives: Advantages for health research. BMJ. 1998;316:463466.
10. Entwistle VA, Watt IS, Davis H, et al. Developing information materials to present the findings of technology assessments to consumers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998;14:4770.
11. Fox NJ, Ward KJ, O'Rourke AJ. The ‘expert patient’: Empowerment or medical dominance? The case of weight loss, pharmaceutical drugs and the Internet. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60:12991309.
12. Germann K, Wilson D. Organizational capacity for community development in regional health authorities: A conceptual model. Health Promot Int. 2004;19:289298.
13. Greer AL, Goodwin JS, Freeman JL, Wu ZH. Bringing the patient back in: Guidelines, practice variations, and the social context of medical practice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:747761.
14. Harrisson MI. Organizational diagnosis and assessment: Bridging theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1999.
15. Hartley J, Benington J. Copy and paste, or graft and transplant? Knowledge sharing through inter-organizational networks. Public Money Manage. 2006;26:101108.
16. Hivon M, Lehoux P, Denis JL, Tailliez S. Use of health technology assessment in decision making: Coresponsibility of users and producers? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:268275.
17. ICES. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in asymptomatic men. Ottawa: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences; 2002.
18. ICES. What effects do provincial drug plan coverage policies for new drugs have on patterns of use and cost? Ottawa: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences; 2003.
19. Jørgensen T, Hvenegaard A, Kristensen FB. Health technology assessment in Denmark. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:347381.
20. Lavis JN. Research, public policymaking, and knowledge-translation processes: Canadian efforts to build bridges. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26:3745.
21. Lomas J, Fulop N, Gagnon D, Allen P. On being a good listener: Setting priorities for applied health services research. Milbank Q. 2003;81:363388.
22. Menon D, Stafinski T. A Canadian health technology diffusion and management strategy: A discussion paper. Ottawa: Federal/Provincial/Territorial Working Group on the Canadian Health Technology Strategy; 2003.
23. NHMRC. Guide to effective participation of consumers and communities in developing and disseminating health information. Canberra: Australian Government; 2006.
24. Nilsen ES, Myrhaug HT, Johansen M, Oliver S, Oxman AD. Methods of consumer involvement in developing healthcare policy and research, clinical practice guidelines and patient information material. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006; 3: CD004563.
25. Patton MQ. Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2002.
26. Peltz DC. Some expanded perspectives on the use of social science in public policy. In: Yinger J, Cutler S, eds. Major social issues: A multidisciplinary view. New York: Free Press; 1978:346357.
27. Pivik J, Rode E, Ward C. A consumer involvement model for health technology assessment in Canada. Health Policy. 2004;69:253268.
28. Royle J, Oliver S. Consumer involvement in the health technology assessment program. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:493497.
29. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1998.
30. Thompson AG. The meaning of patient involvement and participation in health care consultations: A taxonomy. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64:12971310.
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:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 1
Total number of PDF views: 11 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 84 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 18th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.