Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:13:47.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introducing patients' and the public's perspectives to health technology assessment: A systematic review of international experiences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2011

Marie-Pierre Gagnon ,
Marie Desmartis ,
Dolorès Lepage-Savary ,
Johanne Gagnon ,
Michèle St-Pierre ,
Marc Rhainds ,
Renald Lemieux ,
Francois-Pierre Gauvin ,
Hugo Pollender  and
France Légaré
Marie-Pierre Gagnon
Affiliation:
Laval University and Quebec University Hospital Research Centre
Marie Desmartis
Affiliation:
Quebec University Hospital Research Centre
Dolorès Lepage-Savary
Affiliation:
Quebec University Hospital Centre
Johanne Gagnon
Affiliation:
Laval University
Michèle St-Pierre
Affiliation:
Laval University
Marc Rhainds
Affiliation:
Laval University and Quebec University Hospital Centre
Renald Lemieux
Affiliation:
Sherbrooke University Medical Centre
Francois-Pierre Gauvin
Affiliation:
National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy
Hugo Pollender
Affiliation:
Quebec University Hospital Research Centre
France Légaré
Affiliation:
Laval University and Quebec University Hospital Research Centre
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to review international experiences of patient or public involvement in the field of health technology assessment (HTA).

Methods: A systematic review of the scientific literature was conducted. A literature search was performed across nine databases. Other literature was identified through citation tracking, government websites (HTA agencies), and Internet search engines. Characteristics of the studies, description of the activities related to patient or public involvement, impact of these activities on the HTA process, and factors facilitating or limiting involvement were abstracted independently by two reviewers.

Results: A total of 1,441 potentially relevant papers were identified by the main search strategy. Among these, seventeen papers met the inclusion criteria; other search strategies identified seven additional documents. The findings reveal that patient or public involvement in HTA activities was reported in two domains, research and HTA process. In the research domain, patients are consulted to gather evidence about their perspectives, experiences, or preferences about a health technology. These perspectives could add key dimensions to the evaluation of health technologies that might otherwise be overlooked. In the domain of the HTA process, patients or public representatives participate in different stages of this process: prioritization, evidence assessment, or dissemination of findings.

Conclusions: There are few published examples of experiences involving patients and the public in HTA. These examples show that patients' or the public's perspectives could add important dimensions to the evaluation of health technologies. However, there is a need to develop more systematic approaches to considering patients' and the public's perspectives in HTA.

Keywords

Health technology assessmentPatients' perspectivesPatients' participationPublic participationSystematic review
Type
ASSESSMENTS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 31 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Abelson, J, Giacomini, M, Lehoux, P, Gauvin, FP. Bringing ‘the public’ into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice. Health Policy. 2007;82:37–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Appel, LJ, Steinberg, EP, Powe, NR, et al. Risk reduction from low osmolality contrast media. What do patients think it is worth? Med Care. 1990;28:324–337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Boote, J, Telford, R, Cooper, C. Consumer involvement in health research: A review and research agenda. Health Policy. 2002;61:213–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Bridges, JF, Jones, C. Patient-based health technology assessment: A vision of the future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:30–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Chafe, R, Neville, D, Rathwell, T, Deber, R. A framework for involving the public in health care coverage and resource allocation decisions. Healthc Manage Forum. 2008;21:6–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Coulter, A. Perspectives on health technology assessment: Response from the patient's perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:92–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Davies, C, Wetherell, M, Barnett, E, Seymour-Smith, S. Opening the box. Evaluating the Citizens Council of NICE. In: The Open University. National Co-ordinating Centre for Research Methodology, NHS Research and Development Program; 2005.Google Scholar
8. Entwistle, VA, Watt, IS, Davis, H, et al. Developing information materials to present the findings of technology assessments to consumers. The experience of the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998;14:47–70.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;26:334–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Gauvin, FP, Abelson, J, Giacomini, M, Eyles, J, Lavis, JN. “It all depends”: Conceptualizing public involvement in the context of health technology assessment agencies. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70:1518–1526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Goven, J. Assessing genetic testing: Who are the “lay experts”? Health Policy. 2008;85:1–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Green, LW, George, MA, Daniel, M, et al. Study of participatory research in health promotion. Ottawa: Royal Society of Canada; 1994.Google Scholar
13. Hailey, D, Nordwall, M. Survey on the involvement of consumers in health technology assessment programs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:497–499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Happ, BA. The effect of point of care technology on the quality of patient care. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1993;183–187.Google Scholar
15. Health Equality Europe. Understanding health technology assessment. Europe: Health Equality Europe; July 2008.Google Scholar
16. Hofmann, B. Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:312–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Hutchinson, AB. A health technology assessment of HIV counseling and testing technologies: Evidence of effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and the consumer perspective. Georgia: Georgia State University; 2003.Google Scholar
18. Johanson, R, Rigby, C, Newburn, M, Stewart, M, Jones, P. Suggestions in maternal and child health for the National Technology Assessment Programme: A consideration of consumer and professional priorities. J R Soc Health. 2002;122:50–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Jolly, K, Taylor, R, Lip, GY, et al. The Birmingham Rehabilitation Uptake Maximisation Study (BRUM). Home-based compared with hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation in a multi-ethnic population: Cost-effectiveness and patient adherence. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:1–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. 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;25:35–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Lassen, KO, Olsen, J, Grinderslev, E, Kruse, F, Bjerrum, M. Nutritional care of medical inpatients: A health technology assessment. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6:7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Lehoux, P, Blume, S. Technology assessment and the sociopolitics of health technologies. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2000;25:1083–1120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Lehoux, P, Williams-Jones, B. Mapping the integration of social and ethical issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:9–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Leys, M. Health care policy: Qualitative evidence and health technology assessment. Health Policy. 2003;65:217–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Leys, M. Health Technology Assessment: The contribution of qualitative research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:317–329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Menon, D, Stafinski, T. Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: Findings from a citizens' jury. Health Expect. 2008;11:282–293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. Mihaylov, S, Stark, C, McColl, E, et al. Stepped treatment of older adults on laxatives. The STOOL trial. Health Technol Assess. 2008;12:iii–iv, ix–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Milewa, T. Representation and legitimacy in health policy formulation at a national level: Perspectives from a study of health technology eligibility procedures in the United Kingdom. Health Policy. 2008;85:356–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29. Moret-Hartman, M, Reuzel, R, Grin, J, van Der Wilt, GJ. Participatory workshops are not enough to prevent policy implementation failures: An example of a policy development process concerning the drug interferon-beta for multiple sclerosis. Health Care Anal. 2008;16:161–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Nixon, J, Nelson, EA, Cranny, G, et al. Pressure relieving support surfaces: A randomised evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10:iii–iv, ix–x, 1–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31. Oliver, S, Armes, D, Gyte, G. Evaluation of public influence on the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. Social Science Research Unit. Institute of Education, University of London; 2006.Google Scholar
32. Oliver, S, Clarke-Jones, L, Rees, R, et al. Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: Developing an evidence-based approach. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:1–148, III–IV.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Oliver, S, Milne, R, Bradburn, J, et al. Involving consumers in a needs-led research program: A pilot project. Health Expect. 2001;4:18–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34. Oliver, SR, Rees, RW, Clarke-Jones, L, et al. A multidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services research. Health Expect. 2008;11:72–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35. Ong, BN. The lay perspective in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1996;12:511–517.Google ScholarPubMed
36. Pivik, J, Rode, E, Ward, C. A consumer involvement model for health technology assessment in Canada. Health Policy. 2004;69:253–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37. Ratcliffe, J, Buxton, M. Patients' preferences regarding the process and outcomes of life-saving technology: An application of conjoint analysis to liver transplantation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999;15:340–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38. Ratcliffe, J, Longworth, L. Investigating the structural reliability of a discrete choice experiment within health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:139–144.Google ScholarPubMed
39. Rowe, G, Frewer, LJ. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2005;30:251–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40. Royle, J, Oliver, S. Consumer involvement in the health technology assessment program. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:493–497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41. Stolk, EA, Busschbach, JJ, Caffa, M, Meuleman, EJ, Rutten, FF. Cost utility analysis of sildenafil compared with papaverine-phentolamine injections. BMJ. 2000;320:1165–1168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42. Street, JM, Braunack-Mayer, AJ, Facey, K, Ashcroft, RE, Hiller, JE. Virtual community consultation? Using the literature and weblogs to link community perspectives and health technology assessment. Health Expect. 2008;11:189–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43. TA-SWISS. Centre d'évaluation des choix technologiques. http://www.ta-swiss.ch (accessed month day, year).Google Scholar
44. Thomas, KS, Keogh-Brown, MR, Chalmers, JR, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of salicylic acid and cryotherapy for cutaneous warts. An economic decision model. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10:iii, ix-87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45. van Kammen, J, Jansen, CW, Bonsel, GJ, et al. Technology assessment and knowledge brokering: The case of assisted reproduction in The Netherlands. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:302–306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Gagnon supplementary material

Tables and PubMedsearchStrategy

Download Gagnon supplementary material(File)
File 21.1 KB