Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-n8gtw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-13T01:21:31.739Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INVOLVEMENT OF CONSUMERS IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES BY INAHTA AGENCIES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 December 2012

David Hailey ,
Sophie Werkö ,
Rugayah Bakri ,
Alun Cameron ,
Britta Göhlen ,
Susan Myles ,
Jasmine Pwu  and
Jomkwan Yothasamut
David Hailey
Affiliation:
University of Wollongong, Australia
Sophie Werkö
Affiliation:
Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment
Rugayah Bakri
Affiliation:
Ministry of Health Malaysia
Alun Cameron
Affiliation:
Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures -Surgical
Britta Göhlen
Affiliation:
German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information
Susan Myles
Affiliation:
Healthcare Improvement Scotland
Jasmine Pwu
Affiliation:
Center for Drug Evaluation
Jomkwan Yothasamut
Affiliation:
Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: To obtain further information from members of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) on the involvement of consumers in their programs.

Methods: A questionnaire for a survey was developed and sent to member agencies in November 2010. Survey responses were compared with those from an earlier survey conducted in 2005.

Results: Of the thirty-three agencies that provided responses, 67 percent involve consumers in some aspects of their health technology assessment (HTA) programs, compared with 57 percent in 2005. As in the earlier survey, most agencies reporting involvement have contact with consumer or patient organizations and a large minority also involve individual consumers. Summaries of HTA reports that are intended to be easily understood by consumers are prepared by 84 percent of the agencies, and 42 percent involve consumers in dissemination of HTA material. In both areas, there was some increase from the levels previously reported.

Conclusions: The survey results suggest that there is a trend to increased involvement of consumers by the INAHTA agencies in their programs but that the level of involvement remains relatively limited. The manner of consumer participation varies between agencies.

Keywords

Health Technology assessmentBiomedicalAgenciesPatientsConsumer participation

Information

Type
POLICIES
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , January 2013 , pp. 79 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

1.Hailey, D. Consumer involvement in health technology assessment. HTA Initiative #21. Edmonton: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research; 2005. [cited 2005 December 10]. Available from: http://www.ihe.ca/documents/HTA-FR21.pdf.Google Scholar
2.Pivik, J, Rode, E, Ward, C. A consumer involvement model for health technology assessment in Canada. Health Policy. 2004;69:253–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Ghersi, D. Making it happen: approaches to involving consumers in Cochrane reviews. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25:270–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Sleath, B, Rucker, TD. Consumer participation in health policy decisions: empowerment or puffery? J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2001;12:35–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Rowe, R, Shepherd, M. Public participation in the new NHS: no closer to citizen control? Soc Polit Adm. 2002;36:275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Telford, R, Boote, JD, Cooper, CL. What does it mean to involve consumers successfully in NHS research? A consensus study. Health Expect. 2004;7:209–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Royle, J, Oliver, S. Consumer involvement in the health technology assessment program. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:493–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Hailey, D, Nordwall, M. Survey on the involvement of consumers in health technology assessment programs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:497–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;26:334–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Lee, A, Skött, LS, Hansen, HP. Organizational and patient-related assessments in HTAs: state of the art. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:530–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Gagnon, M-P, 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;27:31–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Gauvin, FP, 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;27:43–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Menon, D, Stafinski, T. Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11:75–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Hailey, D. Development of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 1):24–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Légaré, F, Boivin, A, van der Weijden, T, et al.Patient and public involvement in clinical practice guidelines: a knowledge synthesis of existing programs. Med Decis Making. 2011;31:E45–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Eccles, MP, Grimshaw, JM, Shekelle, P, Schünemann, HJ, Woolf, S. Developing clinical practice guidelines: target audiences, identifying topics for guidelines, guideline group composition and functioning and conflicts of interest. Implement Sci. 2012;7:60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar