Skip to main content Accessibility help

Patients' perspectives in health technology assessment: A route to robust evidence and fair deliberation

  • Karen Facey (a1), Antoine Boivin (a2), Javier Gracia (a3), Helle Ploug Hansen (a4), Alessandra Lo Scalzo (a5), Jean Mossman (a6) and Ann Single (a6)...


There is increasing emphasis on providing patient-focused health care and ensuring patient involvement in the design of health services. As health technology assessment (HTA) is meant to be a multidisciplinary, wide-ranging policy analysis that informs decision making, it would be expected that patients’ views should be incorporated into the assessment. However, HTA is still driven by collection of quantitative evidence to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of a health technology. Patients’ perspectives about their illness and the technology are rarely included, perhaps because they are seen as anecdotal, biased views. There are two distinct but complementary ways in which HTAs can be strengthened by: (i) gathering robust evidence about the patients’ perspectives, and (ii) ensuring effective engagement of patients in the HTA process from scoping, through evidence gathering, assessment of value, development of recommendations and dissemination of findings. Robust evidence eliciting patients’ perspectives can be obtained through social science research that is well conducted, critically appraised and carefully reported, either through meta-synthesis of existing studies or new primary research. Engagement with patients can occur at several levels and we propose that HTA should seek to support effective patient participation to create a fair deliberative process. This should allow two-way flow of information, so that the views of patients are obtained in a supportive way and fed into decision-making processes in a transparent manner.



Hide All
1. Abelson, J, Forest, PG, Eyles, J, Smith, P, Martin, E, Gauvin, FP. Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57:239251.
2. Bailey, KD. Methods of social research. New York: The Free Press; 1982.
3. Barroso, J, Gollop, CJ, Sandelowski, M, et al. The challenges of searching for and retrieving qualitative studies. West J Nurs Res. 2003;25:153178.
4. Bridges, JFP, Jones, C. Patient based health technology assessment: A vision of the future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:3035.
5. Dixon-Woods, M, Bonas, S, Booth, A, et al. How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qual Res. 2006;6:2744.
6. Edwards, P, Roberts, I, Clarke, M, et al. Methods to increase response rates to postal questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2:MR000008.
7. Gagnon, M-P, Lepage-Savary, D, Gagnon, J, et al. Introducing patient perspective in health technology assessment at the local level. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:54.
8. Gauvin, F-P. Public involvement in health technology assessment agencies: A comparative analysis of Canada, Denmark, and the United Kingdom [PhD thesis]. Hamilton: McMaster University; 2008.
9. Hailey, D. Consumer involvement in HTA. Alberta: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research HTA Unit; 2005. (accessed May 27, 2009).
10. Hailey, D, Nordwall, M. Survey on the involvement of consumers in health technology assessment programs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:497499.
11. Health Equality Europe. Understanding health technology assessment. Europe: Health Equality Europe; 2008 (accessed May 27, 2009).
12. Hewlett, S, DeWit, M, Richards, P, et al. Patients and professionals as research partners: Challenges, practicalities and benefits. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;55:676680.
13. Kristensen, FB, Sigmund, H. Health technology assessment handbook. Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment, National Board of Health; 2007.
14. Kuper, A, Reeves, S, Levinson, W. An introduction to reading and appraising qualitative research. BMJ. 2008;337:a288.
15. Lampe, K, Mäkelä, M. HTA core model for medical and surgical interventions 1.0R. – Section 3.6 Ethical Analysis. Copenhagen: EUnetHTA Work Package 4; 2008. (accessed March 29, 2010).
16. Lee, A, Sinding, LS. A review of organizational and patient-related assessments in HTAs published by INAHTA members. Dan Health Technol Assess. 2007;9:2.
17. Lehoux, P, Daudelin, G, Demers-Payette, O, Boivin, A. Fostering deliberations about health innovation: What do we want to know from publics? Soc Sci Med. 2009;68:20022009.
18. Malterud, K. Qualitative research: Standards, challenges and guidelines. Lancet. 2001;358:483488.
19. Nicholas, DB, Globerman, J, Antle, BJ, McNeill, T, Lach, LM. Processes of metastudy: A study of psychosocial adaptation to childhood chronic health conditions. Int J Qual Methods. 2006;5:110. (accessed May 27, 2009).
20. Noblitt, GW, Hare, RD. Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. California: Sage Publications; 1988.
21. Popay, J, Roberts, H, Sowden, A, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. Draft report from ESRC Methods Programme. University of Lancaster: Institute for Health Research; 2004.
22. Rowe, G, Frewer, LJ. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2005;30:251290. (accessed June 10, 2009).
23. Street, J, Braunack-Mayer, A, Facey, K, et al. Virtual community consultation? Using the literature and weblogs to link community perspectives and health technology assessment. Health Expect. 2008;11:189200.
24. Telford, R, Boote, J, Cooper, C. What does it mean to involve consumers successfully in NHS research? A consensus study. Health Expect. 2004;7:209220.
25. Webler, T. “Right” discourse in citizen participation: An evaluative yardstick. In: Renn, O, Webler, T, Wiedemann, P, eds. Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic; 1995.


Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Patients' perspectives in health technology assessment: A route to robust evidence and fair deliberation

  • Karen Facey (a1), Antoine Boivin (a2), Javier Gracia (a3), Helle Ploug Hansen (a4), Alessandra Lo Scalzo (a5), Jean Mossman (a6) and Ann Single (a6)...


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.