Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Moving cautiously: Public involvement and the health technology assessment community

  • François-Pierre Gauvin (a1), Julia Abelson (a2), Mita Giacomini (a3), John Eyles (a3) and John N. Lavis (a4)...

Abstract

Objectives: This study explores the factors that enhance or reduce the prospects for public involvement in the activities of health technology assessment (HTA) agencies.

Methods: The analytical framework for this study is based on the work of John W. Kingdon, which provides a comprehensive synthesis of the factors influencing governments and public organizations' agenda. The study draws insights from forty-two semistructured telephone interviews with informants involved in international HTA networks and/or in HTA agencies in Canada, Denmark, and the United Kingdom.

Results: This exploratory study suggests that the HTA community is moving toward greater public involvement. However, the HTA community remains cautious and ambivalent about the technical feasibility of public involvement, its acceptability to policy makers and practitioners, and its impacts on HTA agencies' resources and procedures.

Conclusions: The study stresses the importance of conducting rigorous and compelling evaluations to inform HTA agencies' decision to adopt, or reject, public involvement practices.

Copyright

References

Hide All
1. Abelson, J, Gauvin, F-P. Engaging citizens: One route to health care accountability. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks; 2004. http://cprn.org/documents/28104_en.pdf (accessed September 27, 2010).
2. Abelson, J, Giacomini, M, Lehoux P, Gauvin F-P. Bringing ‘the public’ into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice. Health Policy. 2007;82:3750.
3. Banta, D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy. 2003;63:121132.
4. Baumgartner, FR, Jones, BD. Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1993.
5. Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis. Citizens panel contributes to assessment process for Ontario's health technologies. Hamilton: Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, 2009. http://www.chepa.org/News-Archives/09-10-27/Citizens_panel_contributes_to_assessment_process_for_Ontario_s_health_technologies.aspx (accessed September 27, 2010).
6. Chinitz, D. Health technology assessment in four countries: Response from political science. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:5560.
7. Coulter, A. Perspectives on health technology assessment: Response from the patient's perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:9296.
8. Davies, C, Wetherell, M, Barnett, E, Seymour-Smith, S. Opening the box: Evaluating the Citizens Council of NICE. London: School of Health and Social Welfare and Psychology Discipline, Open University; 2005. http://www.pcpoh.bham.ac.uk/publichealth/methodology/docs/invitations/Citizens_council_Mar05.pdf (accessed September 27, 2010).
9. Florin, D, Dixon, J. Public involvement in health care. BMJ. 2004;328:159161.
10. Gauvin, F-P. Public involvement in health technology assessment agencies: A comparative analysis of Canada, Denmark and the United Kingdom. Health Research Methodology Doctoral Programme. Hamilton, Ontario: McMaster University; 2008:236.
11. Gauvin, F-P, 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.
12. Hailey, D, Nordwall, M. Survey on the involvement of consumers in health technology assessment programs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:497499.
13. Health Technology Assessment International. Patient and citizen involvement. 2010. http://www.htai.org/index.php?id=545 (accessed September 27, 2010).
14. INAHTA Ethics Working Group. INAHTA Ethics Working Group on handling ethical issues. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment; 2005:30. http://www.inahta.org/upload/Final%20report%20Ethics%20in%20HTA%20Nov%2007.pdf (accessed September 27, 2010).
15. Jorgensen, T, Hvenegaard, A, Kristensen, FB. Health technology assessment in Denmark. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:347381.
16. Kingdon, JW. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. 2nd ed. New York: Longman; 2003.
17. Lehoux, P. The problem of health technology: Policy implications for modern health care systems. New York: Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group; 2006.
18. Leys, M. Health technology assessment: The contribution of qualitative research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:317329.
19. McDaid, D. Co-ordinating health technology assessment in Canada: A European perspective. Health Policy. 2003;63:205213.
20. Morse, JM, Mitcham, C. Exploring qualitatively-derived concepts: Inductive-deductive pitfalls. Int J Qual Methods. 2002;1:113.
21. Moynihan, R, Oxmand, AD, Lavis, JN, Paulsen, E. Evidence-informed health policy: Using research to make health systems healthier. Oslo: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services; 2008:112. http://www.kunnskapssenteret.no/binary?id=1233 (accessed September 27, 2010).
22. Oliver, S, Armes, D, Gyte, G. Evaluation of public influence on the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme (Executive summary). London: Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London; 2006:12. http://www.hta.ac.uk/public/evaluation_execsumm.pdf (accessed September 27, 2010).
23. Strandberg-Larsen, M, Nielsen, MB, Vallgarda, S, et al. Denmark: Health system review. Health Syst transit. 2007;9:187. http://www.euro.who.int/_data/assets/pdf_file/0004/80581/E91190.pdf (accessed September 27, 2010).
24. Strauss, AL, Corbin, J. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1998.
25. ten Have, H. Ethical perspectives on health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:7176.

Keywords

Moving cautiously: Public involvement and the health technology assessment community

  • François-Pierre Gauvin (a1), Julia Abelson (a2), Mita Giacomini (a3), John Eyles (a3) and John N. Lavis (a4)...

Metrics

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.