Evaluating the impact of patient involvement in health technology assessments (HTA) may help improve practices and avoid ineffective activities. Evaluation, however, continues to be infrequent, inconsistent, and often only relates to process quantity or quality. The Patient and Citizen Involvement in HTA Interest Group (PCIG) within Health Technology Assessment International set out to contextualize this impact to support evaluation.

Given the lack of established methodology to measure impact, the team performed a qualitative analysis of first-hand accounts about perceived changes in HTA due to involvement of patient stakeholders. A questionnaire was developed, piloted, and rolled out to collect personal perspectives from stakeholders with relevant experience. The stories were analyzed in the aggregate to identify themes in the data.

From January 2019 to September 2021, twenty-four responses were collected through PCIG’s network. Responses (including one joint industry-HTA body submission) came from patient representatives (12), HTA bodies (11), and industry representatives (2) from North America (5), South America (3), Europe (13), and Asia Pacific (3). Based on themes commonly reported, a three-domain framework for evaluating impact is proposed: impact on basis of HTA result or recommendation, impact on HTA body, and impact on patient participants. The framework includes components under each domain to support reporting.

Using the Three-Domain Impact Framework may be useful in identifying, evaluating, and communicating the value of patient involvement in HTA. Enhancing and increasing reporting practices may improve transparency and facilitate process improvements for meaningful integration of patient stakeholders into HTA appraisals across jurisdictions.

While the impact of health technology assessments (HTAs) is often not evaluated, some HTA bodies measure the impact of patient involvement in their processes. Evaluating how patient involvement is perceived by all stakeholders may help to improve practices and avoid activities that unduly burden patient and HTA communities. Frameworks and tools have been designed to analyze the impact of patient engagement along the healthcare development lifecycle. Reporting on the impact of patient involvement in HTA-specific activities, however, continues to be infrequent, unstandardized, and not comprehensive.

Having a common framework to characterize and report on the impact of patient involvement may enable this practice to be optimized and harmonized across HTA contexts.

The Patient and Citizen Involvement Interest Group (PCIG) within Health Technology Assessment International set out to contextualize this impact and support reporting. A questionnaire was developed, piloted, and rolled out to collect multistakeholder personal perceptions of the impact of patient involvement in individual HTAs. Questions included: “What difference did you feel patient involvement made in the HTA activity?” and “What would have been missed without patient involvement?”. From January 2019 to September 2021, 24 responses (including one joint submission) were collected through the PCIG’s network from HTA bodies (11), patient representatives (12), and industry representatives (2) from North America (5), South America (3), Europe (13), and Australia (3).

Common themes were extracted from these experiences to characterize the impact of patient participation in HTA processes. Based on these commonalities, a harmonized framework consisting of three “domains” is proposed: impact on the decision-making process; impact on patient stakeholders; and impact on the HTA body. The framework includes a set of items under each domain to support reporting.

By having common language and measures, the HTA community can harmonize processes across jurisdictions to evaluate and communicate the value of patient involvement in HTA. Improving consistent reporting may facilitate more efficient process improvement for meaningful integration of patient stakeholders into HTA decision-making.

The objective was to identify and describe the published guidance and current academic discourse of ethical issues and standards related to the use of Social Media Research for generating patient insights for the use by health technology assessment (HTA) or health policy decisions.

A scoping review of the literature was conducted in PubMed and Embase and identified 935 potential references published between January 2017 and June 2021. After title and abstract screening by three reviewers, 40 publications were included, the relevant information was extracted and data were collected in a mind map, which was then used to structure the output of the review.

Social Media Research may reveal new insights of relevance to HTA or health policies into patient needs, patient experiences, or patient behaviors. However, the research approaches, methods, data use, interpretation, and communication may expose those who post the data in social media channels to risks and potential harms relating to privacy, anonymity/confidentiality, authenticity, context, and rapidly changing technologies.

An actively engaged approach to ensuring ethical innocuousness is recommended that carefully follows best practices throughout planning, conduct, and communication of the research. Throughout the process and as a follow-up, there should be a discourse with the ethical experts to maximally protect the current and future users of social media, to support their trust in the research, and to advance the knowledge in parallel to the advancement of the media themselves, the technologies, and the research tools.

The aim of this initiative was to examine collaboratively, in a multi-stakeholder team (health technology assessment (HTA) practitioners with patient involvement expertise, health technology industry, patient advocates, health policy experts, patient engagement experts), whether evidence generated through social media research (SMR) fills current information gaps relating to insights on specific aspects of patient experiences, preferences, or patient needs and delivers additional value to HTA.

The framing of the project was done in a co-creative, deliberative multi-stakeholder process. Challenge and refinement happened through discussions with 25 independent stakeholders from HTA bodies, industry, academia, and patient advocacy. For critical themes identified during the framing phase, scoping literature reviews were performed including the state of methods and examples for the use of SMR in HTA.

The framing and stakeholder discussions specified a set of expectations and requirements, and the scoping reviews revealed the current state of methods and usage of SMR in health-policy decision making.

The project concluded that SMR can contribute new, relevant evidence to HTA. It is however recommended to evolve the science through defining best practices when planning, conducting, and using SMR and to conduct multi-stakeholder pilot SMR projects to address questions relevant to current HTAs and to validate and improve the proposed practices.

Since October 2020, Conitec has made public calls (PCs) to invite patients and family members to express perspectives during committee meetings. This study seeks to reflect about the impact of the newest patient and public involvement (PPI) Conitec strategy and how it can contribute to increase patient direct involvement and public confidence regarding Brazilian health decisions in medical devices.

We conducted a document analysis after searching for PCs addressed to medical devices in the section “Patient Perspectives” on Conitec´s website until Aug 31, 2021.

From 64 PCs, five were related to medical devices. Rotational thromboelastometry for transfusion controls: Ended upon applicant request. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): One patient gave his testimonial, explaining how it impacted his quality of life and daily activities, besides answering questions from the committee. The testimonial was not included in the recommendation report. After the public consultation, the initial recommendation changed from non-reimbursement to reimbursement. Botton™ probe for gastrotomy: Eleven people volunteered and a family member was selected. She expressed the importance of the device in her son’s quality of life, making ordinary activities more accessible, helping in the physiotherapy sessions, reducing hospitalizations, and supporting her son’s socialization. The initial recommendation was to reimburse it. iStent Inject Trabecular Micro-Bypass System™ (glaucoma treatment): No patients volunteered. The final recommendation report informed that Conitec received 55 comments through public consultation, including experiences and opinions about the technology. After the public consultation, there was a change from the initial to the final recommendation, from non-incorporation to incorporation. Non-invasive ventilation (cystic fibrosis treatment): There were five volunteers and a mother of twins, both with cystic fibrosis, gave her testimonial. She expressed the importance of this device in her kids’ quality of life, allowing them to sleep better, eat and study, control the symptoms, and reduce hospitalizations and antibiotic usage.

Aspects such as documenting this participation, communicating and offering support to the public and patients, analysis and transparency are essential for evaluating and improving this strategy.

Since 2019, Canada’s Drug and Health Technology Agency (CADTH) has worked directly with patients through its Patient and Community Advisory Committee (PCAC). In Brazil, Conitec has worked directly with patients since 2021 through testimonials in its committee meetings for all assessed technologies. In this study we explored patients’ perspectives about their participation in these processes.

Two patients directly involved with both CADTH and Conitec were invited to share their perspectives about the strengths and weaknesses of the patient engagement processes.

For CADTH, the strengths were as follows: PCAC focuses on the whole organization, including the patient engagement strategy and strategic plan, and is on the same level as other professional committees; PCAC members are compensated; the ‘Learning Sessions’ show CADTH staff the ramifications of their work in people’s lives; and there is increased patient engagement on other committees throughout CADTH. The weaknesses identified with the CADTH process were that PCAC is an advisory body with no decision-making authority and that the diversity of people on the PCAC could be increased. In addition, while CADTH informs and consults patients, the PCAC is not involved in individual HTAs.

The strengths of Conitec’s process were that the volunteer is selected by patients; there are opportunities to consolidate direct patient involvement and promote it in other instances; and the technical support is excellent. On the downside, there was a lack of information about this opportunity; the testimonials last only ten minutes and patients are frequently not questioned; only one patient can participate; there is a lack of transparency about testimonial analysis and its role; and being the only representative during a discussion that culminates in a decision can cause anxiety about performance.

Patients felt heard in the engagement processes and stated that the PCAC embeds patient perspectives throughout CADTH, not just in particular HTAs. One patient felt that her participation was essential for the committees to understand patients’ lived experiences.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in the Brazilian Health Technology Assessment (HTA) process occurs in response to a legislative mandate for “social participation.” This resulted in some limited patient participation activities, and, therefore, a more systematic approach was needed. The study describes the development of a suggested framework for action to improve PPI in HTA.

This work used formal methodology to develop a PPI framework based on three-phase mixed-methods research with desktop review of Brazilian PPI activities in HTA; workshop, survey, and interviews with Brazilian stakeholders; and a rapid review of international practices to enact effective patient involvement. Patient partners reviewed the draft framework.

According to patient group representatives, their involvement in the Brazilian HTA process is important but could be improved. Different stakeholders perceived barriers, identified values, and made suggestions for improvement, such as expansion of communication, capacity building, and transparency, to support more meaningful patient involvement. The international practices identified opportunities for earlier, more active, and collaborative PPI during all HTA stages, based on values and principles that are relevant for Brazilian patients and the public. These findings were synthesized to design a framework that defines and systematizes actions to support PPI in Brazil, highlighting the importance of evaluating these strategies.

Since the publication of this framework, some of its suggestions are being implemented in the Brazilian HTA process to improve PPI. We encourage other HTA organizations to consider a systematic and planned approach with regular evaluation when pursuing or strengthening involvement practices.

Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) are directly reported by the patient without interpretation of the patient's response by a clinician or anyone else and pertains to the patient's health, quality of life, or functional status associated with health care or treatment. It can provide patients’ perspectives regarding treatment benefit and harm, directly measure treatment benefit and harm beyond survival, and are often the outcomes of most importance to patients. This study aims to analyze outcomes reported by Brazilian women diagnosed with breast cancer and rank the most important attributes for these patients.

Observational study composed of interviews and questionnaires applied to a convenience sample of women diagnosed with breast cancer. The instruments were developed taking into account the literature on the topic and the expertise of specialists. The questionnaire was built with close-ended questions using multiple-choice and a Likert scale, in order to rank the attributes and outcomes found in the interviews.

The total sample was composed of 65 women diagnosed with breast cancer. Twelve women were interviewed, in September 2020, to explore the main outcomes and preferences about their treatments, such as the most common side effects and the most impacted aspects of life after diagnosis and breast cancer treatment. Psychological, emotional, and sexual impacts were frequently described as aspects of life affected by the disease and its treatment. Fifty-three women, from all the five Brazilian regions, answered the survey applied in October and November 2020. Following an order of importance ranking, the following outcomes were chosen, respectively: overall survival, progression-free survival; and quality of life. The treatment effects that were considered less important, among this sample, were pain and adverse events.

Thinking about expanding the therapeutic quality of users, it is essential to take into account the experiences of patients. PRO is a trend in current research to achieve this goal, in order to influence the decisions of HTA agencies about the importance of valuing outcomes that affect patients' lives.

As more health technology assessment (HTA) bodies seek to implement patient involvement, there is a desire to learn from other HTA bodies about their experiences and understand what approaches can be used and which ones make a real difference to HTA. This is difficult, as the impact of patient involvement in HTA is not well documented. This study aims to promote further discussion about the ways in which patient involvement can impact HTAs by studying stories of impact.

In a multi-stakeholder workshop, experts leading patient involvement in four HTA bodies shared examples of HTAs where they believed patient involvement made a difference, then they reflected on these impact stories within the wider context of impact evaluation.

The HTA bodies drew on patient input and patient-based evidence to inform their HTAs. The patient involvement was observed to elucidate patients’ experiences, needs and preferences which, in turn, was observed to influence the HTA recommendations about optimal use of technologies, including taking account of issues for sub-groups, outcomes that matter to patients and educational needs.

Personal stories of patient involvement may enable a wider understanding of different approaches to and impact of patient involvement. The examples relate to both patient input and patient-based evidence and highlight the role that patient involvement can play in reducing uncertainties and complementing the clinical and economic evidence in HTA. They suggest that impact can be seen in recommendations about how and when a technology is used.