Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

PUBLIC AND PATIENT INVOLVEMENT IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

  • Julia Abelson (a1), Frank Wagner (a2), Deirdre DeJean (a3), Sarah Boesveld (a3), Franςois-Pierre Gauvin (a4), Sally Bean (a5), Renata Axler (a6), Stephen Petersen (a7), Shamara Baidoobonso (a8), Gaylene Pron (a7), Mita Giacomini (a3) and John Lavis (a3)...
Abstract

Objective: As health technology assessment (HTA) organizations in Canada and around the world seek to involve the public and patients in their activities, frameworks to guide decisions about whom to involve, through which mechanisms, and at what stages of the HTA process have been lacking. The aim of this study was to describe the development and outputs of a comprehensive framework for involving the public and patients in a government agency's HTA process.

Methods: The framework was informed by a synthesis of international practice and published literature, a dialogue with local, national and international stakeholders, and the deliberations of a government agency's public engagement subcommittee in Ontario, Canada.

Results: The practice and literature synthesis failed to identify a single, optimal approach to involving the public and patients in HTA. Choice of methods should be considered in the context of each HTA stage, goals for incorporating societal and/or patient perspectives into the process, and relevant societal and/or patient values at stake. The resulting framework is structured around four actionable elements: (i) guiding principles and goals for public and patient involvement (PPI) in HTA, (ii) the establishment of a common language to support PPI efforts, (iii) a flexible array of PPI approaches, and (iv) on-going evaluation of PPI to inform adjustments over time.

Conclusions: A public and patient involvement framework has been developed for implementation in a government agency’s HTA process. Core elements of this framework may apply to other organizations responsible for HTA and health system quality improvement.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      PUBLIC AND PATIENT INVOLVEMENT IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      PUBLIC AND PATIENT INVOLVEMENT IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      PUBLIC AND PATIENT INVOLVEMENT IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
References
Hide All
1. HaileyD. Consumer involvement in health technology assessment. Edmonton, Canada: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research; 2005.
2. HaileyD, WerkoS, BakriR, et al. Involvement of consumers in health technology assessment activities by Inahta agencies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:7983.
3. AbelsonJ, GiacominiM, LehouxP, GauvinFP. Bringing ‘the public’ into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice. Health Policy. 2007;82:3750.
4. BridgesJF, JonesC. Patient-based health technology assessment: A vision of the future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:3035.
5. GagnonMP, DesmartisM, Lepage-SavaryD, 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;27:3142.
6. MenonD, StafinskiT. Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11:7589.
7. WhittyJA. An international survey of the public engagement practices of health technology assessment organizations. Value Health. 2013;16:155163.
8. LevinL, GoereeR, SikichN, et al. Establishing a comprehensive continuum from an evidentiary base to policy development for health technologies: The Ontario experience. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:299309.
9. Health Quality Ontario. Excellence Through Evidence 2016 [cited August 10, 2016]. http://www.hqontario.ca/Evidence-to-Improve-Care/Excellence-Through-Evidence
10. Public Engagement Subcommittee of the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee. Final Report. Toronto, ON: Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee; 2007.
11. OHTAC Public Engagement Subcommittee. Public engagement for health technology assessment at Health Quality Ontario—Final report from the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Commit- 649 tee Public Engagement Subcommittee [Internet]. Toronto: 2015. http://www.hqontario.ca/Portals/0/documents/evidence/special-reports/report-subcommittee-20150407-en.pdf.
12. BombardY. Public engagement pilot study on point-of-care International Normalized Ratio (INR) monitoring devices. Toronto, Canada: Medical Advisory Secretariat, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care; 2009.
13. BombardY, AbelsonJ, SimeonovD, GauvinFP. Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: A participatory approach. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73:135144.
14. AbelsonJ, BombardY, GauvinFP, SimeonovD, BoesveldS. Assessing the impacts of citizen deliberations on the health technology process. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:282289.
15. GauvinFP, AbelsonJ, LavisJ. Evidence brief: Strengthening public and patient engagement in health technology assessment in Ontario. Hamilton, Canada: McMaster Health Forum; May 8, 2014.
16. GauvinFP, LavisJ. Dialogue summary: Strengthening public and patient engagement in health technology assessment in Ontario. Hamilton, Canada: McMaster Health Forum; May 8, 2014.
17. HaileyD, NordwallM. Survey on the involvement of consumers in health technology assessment programs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:497499.
18. GauvinFP, AbelsonJ, GiacominiM, EylesJ, LavisJN. “It all depends”: Conceptualizing public involvement in the context of health technology assessment agencies. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70:15181526.
19. National Institute for Health Care Excellence. Patient and Public Involvement Programme 2014 [updated 20140/04/10/]. http://www.nice.org.uk/getinvolved/patientandpublicinvolvement/ppipinvolvementprogramme.jsp.
20. Washington Health Technology Assessment Program (Washington State). Health Technology Assessment Program 2014 [cited June 23, 2014]. http://www.hca.wa.gov/hta/Pages/index.aspx.
21. National Institute for Health Research. NIHR Evaluation Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre [cited June 23, 2014]. http://www.netscc.ac.uk.
22. Center for New Health Technology Assessment. Center for New Health Technology Assessment [cited June 23, 2014]. http://neca.re.kr/nHTA/eng/.
23. pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review. pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review [cited June 23, 2014]. http://www.pcodr.ca/.
24. WynneB. Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science - Hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genet. 2006;9:211220.
25. AbelsonJ, EylesJ. Public participation and citizen governance in the Canadian health system. In: ForestPG, McIntoshT, MarchildonG, eds. Changing health care in Canada: The Romanow Papers, Volume 2. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press; 2004.
26. BovensM. Public Accountability. In: FerlieE, LynnLE, PollittC, eds. Oxford handbook of public management. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2007.
27. ChinitzD. Health technology assessment in four countries: Response from political science. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:5560.
28. CoulterA, EllinsJ. Effectiveness of strategies for informing, educating, and involving patients. BMJ. 2007;335:2427.
29. FaceyK, BoivinA, GraciaJ, 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.
30. DeJeanD, GiacominiM, SchwartzL, MillerFA. Ethics in Canadian health technology assessment: A descriptive review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:463469.
31. LehouxP. The problem of health technology: Policy implications for modern health care systems. New York, NY: Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group; 2006.
32. DrummondM, TarriconeR, TorbicaA. Assessing the added value of health technologies: Reconciling different perspectives. Value Health. 2013;16 (Suppl):S7S13.
33. GagnonMP, DesmartisM, GagnonJ, et al. Introducing the patient's perspective in hospital health technology assessment (HTA): The views of HTA producers, hospital managers and patients. Health Expect. 2014;17:888900.
34. National Institute for Health Research. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme [cited June 23, 2014]. http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta.
35. Adelaide Health Technology Assessment Centre. About Adelaide Health Technology Assessment (AHTA) 2014 [cited June 23, 2014]. http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ahta/.
36. Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care. SBU – Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment [cited June 23, 2014]. http://www.sbu.se/en/.
37. KCE - Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre. KCE - Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, [cited June 23, 2014]. http://kce.fgov.be.
38. Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures - Surgical (ASERNIP-S). Mission Statement [cited June 23, 2014]. http://www.surgeons.org/for-health-professionals/audits-and-surgical-research/asernip-s.
39. Health Evidence Review Commission (Oregon). Health Technology Assessment Subcommittee Meeting Archives [cited June 23, 2014]. http://www.oregon.gov/oha/herc/Pages/htasArchive.aspx.
40. National Institute for Health Research. Horizon Scanning Centre [cited June 23, 2014]. http://www.hsc.nihr.ac.uk.
41. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Medical Services Advisory Committee [cited June 23, 2014]. http://www.msac.gov.au/.
42. Healthcare Improvement Scotland. Healthcare Improvement Scotland [cited August 10, 2016]. http://healthcareimprovementscotland.org/.
43. New Zealand National Health Committee. New Zealand National Health Committee [cited June 23, 2014]. http://nhc.health.govt.nz/home.
44. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. CADTH 2014 [cited June 23, 2014]. http://www.cadth.ca/en/products/cdr/patient-group-input/.
45. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2015 [updated July 21, 2015]. http://www.ahrq.gov/.
46. The Health Council of the Netherlands. 2015 [updated July 21, 2015]. http://gezondheidsraad.nl/en.
47. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Call for Public Comment 2014 [updated 20140/04/22/]. http://www.msac.gov.au/internet/msac/publishing.nsf/Content/surveys-lp.
48. OliverS, ArmesDG, GyteG. Public involvement in setting a national research agenda: A mixed methods evaluation. Patient. 2009;2:179190.
49. JonesM, EinsiedelE. Institutional policy learning and public consultation: The Canadian xenotransplantation experience. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73:655662.
50. ChambersD, WilsonPM, ThompsonCA, et al. Maximizing the impact of systematic reviews in health care decision making: A systematic scoping review of knowledge-translation resources. Milbank Q. 2011;89:131156.
51. MoranR, DavidsonP. An uneven spread: A review of public involvement in the National Institute of Health Research's Health Technology Assessment program. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:343347.
52. DaviesC, WetherellM, BarnettE. Citizens at the centre: Deliberative participation in health care decisions. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press; 2006.
53. GauvinFP, AbelsonJ, GiacominiM, EylesJ, LavisJN. Moving cautiously: Public involvement and the health technology assessment community. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:4349.
54. Health Technology Assessment International. Patient and Citizen Involvement 2014 [updated 20140/04/10/]. http://www.htai.org/index.php?id=545.
55. RoweG, FrewerLJ. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Human Values. 2005;30:251290.
56. CarmanKL, HeeringaJW, HeilSKR, et al. Public deliberation to elicit input on health topics: Findings from a literature review. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013.
57. BoivinA, LehouxP, LacombeR, BurgersJ, GrolR. Involving patients in setting priorities for healthcare improvement: A cluster randomized trial. Implement Sci. 2014;9:24.
58. Ontario Health Quality. Excellence through evidence: Roadmap for evidence-based recommendations and quality standards. [Internet]. Toronto: 2015. http://www.hqontario.ca/Portals/0/Documents/evidence/reports/excellence-through-evidence-1511-en.pdf.
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:

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary Materials

Abelson supplementary material S2
Supplementary Figure

 Word (177 KB)
177 KB
WORD
Supplementary Materials

Abelson supplementary material S1
Supplementary Figure

 Word (144 KB)
144 KB
WORD
Supplementary Materials

Abelson supplementary material S3
Supplementary Table

 Word (79 KB)
79 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 59
Total number of PDF views: 680 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 1699 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 27th September 2016 - 19th October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.