Skip to main content Accessibility help

Introducing patients' and the public's perspectives to health technology assessment: A systematic review of international experiences

  • Marie-Pierre Gagnon (a1), Marie Desmartis (a2), Dolorès Lepage-Savary (a3), Johanne Gagnon (a4), Michèle St-Pierre (a4), Marc Rhainds (a5), Renald Lemieux (a6), Francois-Pierre Gauvin (a7), Hugo Pollender (a2) and France Légaré (a1)...


Objectives: The aim of this study was to review international experiences of patient or public involvement in the field of health technology assessment (HTA).

Methods: A systematic review of the scientific literature was conducted. A literature search was performed across nine databases. Other literature was identified through citation tracking, government websites (HTA agencies), and Internet search engines. Characteristics of the studies, description of the activities related to patient or public involvement, impact of these activities on the HTA process, and factors facilitating or limiting involvement were abstracted independently by two reviewers.

Results: A total of 1,441 potentially relevant papers were identified by the main search strategy. Among these, seventeen papers met the inclusion criteria; other search strategies identified seven additional documents. The findings reveal that patient or public involvement in HTA activities was reported in two domains, research and HTA process. In the research domain, patients are consulted to gather evidence about their perspectives, experiences, or preferences about a health technology. These perspectives could add key dimensions to the evaluation of health technologies that might otherwise be overlooked. In the domain of the HTA process, patients or public representatives participate in different stages of this process: prioritization, evidence assessment, or dissemination of findings.

Conclusions: There are few published examples of experiences involving patients and the public in HTA. These examples show that patients' or the public's perspectives could add important dimensions to the evaluation of health technologies. However, there is a need to develop more systematic approaches to considering patients' and the public's perspectives in HTA.



Hide All
1. Abelson, J, Giacomini, M, Lehoux, P, Gauvin, FP. Bringing ‘the public’ into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice. Health Policy. 2007;82:3750.
2. Appel, LJ, Steinberg, EP, Powe, NR, et al. Risk reduction from low osmolality contrast media. What do patients think it is worth? Med Care. 1990;28:324337.
3. Boote, J, Telford, R, Cooper, C. Consumer involvement in health research: A review and research agenda. Health Policy. 2002;61:213236.
4. Bridges, JF, Jones, C. Patient-based health technology assessment: A vision of the future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:3035.
5. Chafe, R, Neville, D, Rathwell, T, Deber, R. A framework for involving the public in health care coverage and resource allocation decisions. Healthc Manage Forum. 2008;21:621.
6. Coulter, A. Perspectives on health technology assessment: Response from the patient's perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:9296.
7. Davies, C, Wetherell, M, Barnett, E, Seymour-Smith, S. Opening the box. Evaluating the Citizens Council of NICE. In: The Open University. National Co-ordinating Centre for Research Methodology, NHS Research and Development Program; 2005.
8. Entwistle, VA, Watt, IS, Davis, H, et al. Developing information materials to present the findings of technology assessments to consumers. The experience of the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998;14:4770.
9. 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;26:334340.
10. 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.
11. Goven, J. Assessing genetic testing: Who are the “lay experts”? Health Policy. 2008;85:118.
12. Green, LW, George, MA, Daniel, M, et al. Study of participatory research in health promotion. Ottawa: Royal Society of Canada; 1994.
13. Hailey, D, Nordwall, M. Survey on the involvement of consumers in health technology assessment programs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:497499.
14. Happ, BA. The effect of point of care technology on the quality of patient care. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1993;183–187.
15. Health Equality Europe. Understanding health technology assessment. Europe: Health Equality Europe; July 2008.
16. Hofmann, B. Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:312318.
17. Hutchinson, AB. A health technology assessment of HIV counseling and testing technologies: Evidence of effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and the consumer perspective. Georgia: Georgia State University; 2003.
18. Johanson, R, Rigby, C, Newburn, M, Stewart, M, Jones, P. Suggestions in maternal and child health for the National Technology Assessment Programme: A consideration of consumer and professional priorities. J R Soc Health. 2002;122:5054.
19. Jolly, K, Taylor, R, Lip, GY, et al. The Birmingham Rehabilitation Uptake Maximisation Study (BRUM). Home-based compared with hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation in a multi-ethnic population: Cost-effectiveness and patient adherence. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:1118.
20. 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;25:3541.
21. Lassen, KO, Olsen, J, Grinderslev, E, Kruse, F, Bjerrum, M. Nutritional care of medical inpatients: A health technology assessment. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6:7.
22. Lehoux, P, Blume, S. Technology assessment and the sociopolitics of health technologies. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2000;25:10831120.
23. Lehoux, P, Williams-Jones, B. Mapping the integration of social and ethical issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:916.
24. Leys, M. Health care policy: Qualitative evidence and health technology assessment. Health Policy. 2003;65:217226.
25. Leys, M. Health Technology Assessment: The contribution of qualitative research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:317329.
26. Menon, D, Stafinski, T. Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: Findings from a citizens' jury. Health Expect. 2008;11:282293.
27. Mihaylov, S, Stark, C, McColl, E, et al. Stepped treatment of older adults on laxatives. The STOOL trial. Health Technol Assess. 2008;12:iiiiv, ix–139.
28. Milewa, T. Representation and legitimacy in health policy formulation at a national level: Perspectives from a study of health technology eligibility procedures in the United Kingdom. Health Policy. 2008;85:356362.
29. Moret-Hartman, M, Reuzel, R, Grin, J, van Der Wilt, GJ. Participatory workshops are not enough to prevent policy implementation failures: An example of a policy development process concerning the drug interferon-beta for multiple sclerosis. Health Care Anal. 2008;16:161175.
30. Nixon, J, Nelson, EA, Cranny, G, et al. Pressure relieving support surfaces: A randomised evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10:iiiiv, ixx, 1163.
31. Oliver, S, Armes, D, Gyte, G. Evaluation of public influence on the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. Social Science Research Unit. Institute of Education, University of London; 2006.
32. Oliver, S, Clarke-Jones, L, Rees, R, et al. Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: Developing an evidence-based approach. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:1148, IIIIV.
33. Oliver, S, Milne, R, Bradburn, J, et al. Involving consumers in a needs-led research program: A pilot project. Health Expect. 2001;4:1828.
34. Oliver, SR, Rees, RW, Clarke-Jones, L, et al. A multidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services research. Health Expect. 2008;11:7284.
35. Ong, BN. The lay perspective in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1996;12:511517.
36. Pivik, J, Rode, E, Ward, C. A consumer involvement model for health technology assessment in Canada. Health Policy. 2004;69:253268.
37. Ratcliffe, J, Buxton, M. Patients' preferences regarding the process and outcomes of life-saving technology: An application of conjoint analysis to liver transplantation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999;15:340351.
38. Ratcliffe, J, Longworth, L. Investigating the structural reliability of a discrete choice experiment within health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:139144.
39. Rowe, G, Frewer, LJ. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2005;30:251290.
40. Royle, J, Oliver, S. Consumer involvement in the health technology assessment program. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:493497.
41. Stolk, EA, Busschbach, JJ, Caffa, M, Meuleman, EJ, Rutten, FF. Cost utility analysis of sildenafil compared with papaverine-phentolamine injections. BMJ. 2000;320:11651168.
42. Street, JM, Braunack-Mayer, AJ, Facey, K, Ashcroft, RE, Hiller, JE. Virtual community consultation? Using the literature and weblogs to link community perspectives and health technology assessment. Health Expect. 2008;11:189200.
43. TA-SWISS. Centre d'évaluation des choix technologiques. (accessed month day, year).
44. Thomas, KS, Keogh-Brown, MR, Chalmers, JR, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of salicylic acid and cryotherapy for cutaneous warts. An economic decision model. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10:iii, ix-87.
45. van Kammen, J, Jansen, CW, Bonsel, GJ, et al. Technology assessment and knowledge brokering: The case of assisted reproduction in The Netherlands. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:302306.


Related content

Powered by UNSILO
Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Gagnon supplementary material
Tables and PubMedsearchStrategy

 Unknown (21 KB)
21 KB

Introducing patients' and the public's perspectives to health technology assessment: A systematic review of international experiences

  • Marie-Pierre Gagnon (a1), Marie Desmartis (a2), Dolorès Lepage-Savary (a3), Johanne Gagnon (a4), Michèle St-Pierre (a4), Marc Rhainds (a5), Renald Lemieux (a6), Francois-Pierre Gauvin (a7), Hugo Pollender (a2) and France Légaré (a1)...


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.