Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

WHY PATIENTS SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

  • Janet Wale (a1), Anna Mae Scott (a2), Bjørn Hofmann (a3), Sarah Garner (a4), Eric Low (a5) and Lloyd Sansom (a6)...

Abstract

Objectives: Some countries make considerable effort to involve patients and patient groups in their health technology assessment (HTA) processes; others are only just considering or are yet to consider patient involvement in HTA.

Methods: This commentary offers four arguments why patient involvement should be prioritized by those HTA agencies that do not yet involve patients: (1) from a patients’ rights perspective, (2) based on patient and community values, (3) centering on evidentiary contributions, and (4) from a methodological perspective.

Results: The first argument builds on the Alma-Ata Declaration, which holds that patients have a right and duty to have a say in the planning and delivery of their health care, individually and collectively. Where HTA is used to determine access to technologies and services, we argue that patients have a right to be heard. The second argues that decisions about treatments and services need to be aligned with the core values and morals of the patients whom the health system serves. The third argues that patients have unique knowledge and insights about living with a health condition and their needs for services and treatments regarding that condition, which can add to the knowledge base and value of the HTA process. The fourth argues that involvement of patients can facilitate methodological advancement of HTA, in areas such as early scientific advice and managed entry with evidence development.

Conclusions: An HTA process that includes patient perspectives can, therefore, provide added value to patients, policy makers and healthcare professionals alike.

  • 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. 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.

      WHY PATIENTS SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
      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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      WHY PATIENTS SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
      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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      WHY PATIENTS SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

References

Hide All
1. Porter, ME. What is value in health care? N Engl J Med. 2010;363:24772481.
3. Banta, D. What is technology assessment? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:79.
4. Gauvin, F-P, Abelson, J, Giacomini, M, Eyles, J, Lavis, JN. Moving cautiously: Public involvement and the health technology assessment community. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:4349.
5. Wortley, S, Wale, J, Grainger, D, Murphy, P. Moving beyond the rhetoric of patient input in health technology assessment deliberations. Aust Health Rev. 2016. May 26. doi:10.1071/AH15216. [Epub ahead of print].
6. 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.
7. Gagnon, MP, Desmartis, M, lepage-Savary, D, 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.
8. Berglas, S, Jutai, L, MacKean, G, Weeks, L. Patients’ perspectives can be integrated in health technology assessments: An exploratory analysis of CADTH Common Drug Review. Research Involvement and Engagement. 2016;2:21.
9. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). http://www.nice.org.uk/about/nice-communities/public-involvement (accessed June 7, 2016).
10. Scottish Medicines Consortium. https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/Public_Involvement (accessed June 7, 2016).
11. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). https://www.cadth.ca/about-cadth/what-we-do/products-services/cdr/patient-input) (accessed June 7, 2016).
12. pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review. https://www.cadth.ca/pcodr/patient-input-and-feedback (accessed June 7, 2016).
13. Hailey, D, Werkö, S, Bakri, R, et al. Involvement of consumers in health technology assessment activities by INAHTA agencies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:7983.
14. Kreis, J, Schmidt, H. Public engagement in health technology assessment and coverage decisions: A study of experiences in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2013;38:89122. doi:10.1215/03616878-1898812.
15. Dirksen, CD. The use of research evidence on patient preferences in health care decision-making: Issues, controversies and moving forward. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconom Outcomes Res. 2014;14:785794.
16. World Health Organization. Declaration of Alma-Ata 1978. http://who.int/publications/almaata_declaration_en.pdf (accessed June 7, 2016).
17. Sixty-seventh World Health Assembly WHA67.23 Agenda item 15.7, 24 May 2014. Health intervention and technology assessment in support of universal health coverage. http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA67/A67_R23-en.pdf (accessed June 7, 2016).
18. Staley, K, Doherty, C. It's not evidence, it's insight: Bringing patients’ perspectives into health technology appraisal at NICE. Research Involvement and Engagement. 2016;2:4.
19. Drummond, M, Tarricone, R, Torbica, A. Assessing the added value of health technologies: Reconciling different perspectives. Value Health. 2013;16:S7-13.
20. Towse, A, Barnsley, P. Approaches to identifying, measuring, and aggregating elements of value. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:360364.
21. Hofmann, B, Cleemput, I, Bond, K, et al. Revealing and acknowledging value judgments in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;3:579586.
22. Henshall, C, Schuller, T; HTAi Policy Forum. Health technology assessment, value-based decision making, and innovation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:353359.
23. NICE Citizens Council Meeting Report 8-9 May 2014. What are the societal values that need to be considered when making decisions about trade-offs between equity and efficiency? http://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/Get-involved/Citizens-Council/Reports/cc-report17-equity-efficiency.pdf (accessed June 10, 2016).
24. 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.
25. Greenhalgh, T, Snow, R, Ryan, S, Rees, S, Salisbury, H. Six 'biases' against patients and carers in evidence-based medicine. BMC Med. 2015;13:200. doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0437-x.
26. Anderson, M, McCleary, KK. On the path to a science of patient input. Sci Transl Med. 2016;8:336ps11.
27. Johnson, DS, Bush, MT, Brandzel, S, Wernli, KJ. The patient voice in research – Evolution of a role. Research Involvement and Education. 2016;2:6.
28. Hansen, HP, Draborg, E, Kristensen, FB. Exploring qualitative research syntheses: The role of patients’ perspectives in health policy design and decision-making. Patient. 2011;4:143152.
29. Tjørnhøj-Thomsen, T, Ploug Hansen, H. Knowledge in health technology assessment: Who, what, how? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:324329.
30. CADTH. Patient involvement in scientific advice. https://www.cadth.ca/scientific-advice/patient-involvement (accessed June 10, 2016).
31. Low, E. Potential for patients and patient-driven organizations to improve evidence for health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31:226227.
32. Basch, E. New frontiers in patient-reported outcomes: Adverse event reporting, comparative effectiveness, and quality assessment. Annu Rev Med. 2014;65:307317.
33. Husereau, D, Henshall, C, Jivraj, J. Adaptive approaches to licensing, health technology assessment, and introduction of drugs and devices. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30:19.

Keywords

WHY PATIENTS SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

  • Janet Wale (a1), Anna Mae Scott (a2), Bjørn Hofmann (a3), Sarah Garner (a4), Eric Low (a5) and Lloyd Sansom (a6)...

Metrics

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