Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T10:50:57.380Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The contribution of French patient and consumer groups to health technology assessments over a 2-year period: an observational retrospective study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2021

Cedric Gesbert ,
Joëlle André-Vert ,
Marc Guerrier Open the ORCID record for Marc Guerrier [Opens in a new window] ,
Margaret Galbraith ,
Christine Devaud ,
Jean-Claude K. Dupont  and
Marie-France Mamzer
Cedric Gesbert
Affiliation:
Paris Descartes – Ethics Research Translations, University of Paris, ParisFR 75006, France
Joëlle André-Vert*
Affiliation:
Public Involvement Department, French National Authority for Health, La Plaine Saint-DenisFR 93210, France
Marc Guerrier
Affiliation:
Public Involvement Department, French National Authority for Health, La Plaine Saint-DenisFR 93210, France
Margaret Galbraith
Affiliation:
Public Involvement Department, French National Authority for Health, La Plaine Saint-DenisFR 93210, France
Christine Devaud
Affiliation:
Public Involvement Department, French National Authority for Health, La Plaine Saint-DenisFR 93210, France
Jean-Claude K. Dupont
Affiliation:
Department of Hospinnomics, Greater Paris University Hospitals (GPUH – AP-HP) and Paris School of Economics (PSE), ParisF-75015, France Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Sorbonne Université, Université de Paris, Inserm, Laboratoire ETREs, ParisF-75006, France
Marie-France Mamzer
Affiliation:
Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Sorbonne Université, Université de Paris, Inserm, Laboratoire ETREs, ParisF-75006, France Unité Fonctionnelle d'Ethique Médicale, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, APHP, 149 Rue de Sèvres, ParisF-75015, France
*
Author for correspondence: Joëlle André-Vert, E-mail: j.andrevert@has-sante.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

In 2017, The French National Authority for Health (HAS) created an open, online, systematic contribution process to enable patient and consumer groups (PCGs) to contribute to health technology assessment (HTA) carried out to aid public authorities in reimbursement and pricing decision making.

Objectives

This retrospective study analyzes how French PCGs contributed to the HTA process within the HAS for the first 2 years of this new mechanism.

Methods

PCG contributions received between 01 January 2017 and 31 December 2018 and the recording of deliberations leading to reports of the corresponding HTAs were included. Analysis grids were designed by the investigators with 5 rounds of refinement tests on 10 random PCG contributions and the reports. Systematic data extraction was then performed separately by two investigators. PCG answers to the open-question templates and the related final HTA report published by the HAS were analyzed.

Results

Seventy-nine contributions from 44 PCGs were received and analyzed by the HAS for 78 out of the 592 HTAs performed for drugs or medical devices during the 2-year period. Twenty-five percent of the HTAs performed for drugs received at least one contribution. The contributions covered quality-of-life aspects, access to care, and personal and family impact. Membership and budget of the contributing PCGs varied greatly.

Conclusions

The experience gained in the first 2 years demonstrates the feasibility of the process and the fact that PCG contribution actually provides relevant input on the patient perspective for HTAs used for reimbursement decisions. The challenges identified on the side of PCGs were time constraints and human resources.

Keywords

Health technology assessmentPatient involvementPatient's expertiseRetrospective study
Type
Assessment
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , 2021 , e48
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Entwistle, VA, Sheldon, TA, Sowden, A, Watt, IS. Evidence-informed patient choice. Practical issues of involving patients in decisions about health care technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998;14:212–25. doi:10.1017/s0266462300012204. PMID: 9611898.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rashid, A, Thomas, V, Shaw, T, Leng, G. Patient and public involvement in the development of healthcare guidance: An overview of current methods and future challenges. Patient. 2017;10:277–82. doi:10.1007/s40271-016-0206-8. PMID: 27830457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. doi:10.1586/erp.10.82. PMID: 21351860.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
EUnetHTA. Patient input in relative effectiveness assessments. 2019 [cited 2020 Dec 15]. Available from: https://eunethta.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Final_290519_Patient-Input-in-REAs.pdf.Google Scholar
EUnetHTA. HTA Core Model V3.0. 2016 [cited 2020 Dec 15]. Available from: https://eunethta.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/HTACoreModel3.0-1.pdf.Google Scholar
Wale, J, Scott, AM, Hofmann, B, Garner, S, Low, E, Sansom, L. Why patients should be involved in Health Technology Assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33:1–4. Epub 2017/05/22. doi: 10.1017/S0266462317000241. PMID: 28528585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wale, JL, Scott, AM, Bertelsen, N, Meade, N, HTAi Patient and Citizen Involvement in HTA Interest Group (PCIG). Strengthening international patient advocacy perspectives on patient involvement in HTA within the HTAi Patient and Citizen Involvement Interest Group - Commentary. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3:3. doi:10.1186/s40900-016-0053-8. PMID: 29062528; PMCID: PMC5611570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gagnon, MP, Desmartis, M, Lepage-Savary, D, Gagnon, J, St-Pierre, M, Rhainds, M, 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. doi:10.1017/S0266462310001315. PMID: 21262085.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Facey, KM. Reflections for future development (eds. Facey, KM, Hansen, HP, Single, ANV, editors. Patient involvement in health technology assessment. Singapore: Springer Nature; 2017. p. 419–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Single, ANV, Facey, KM, Livingstone, H, Silva, AS. Stories of patient involvement impact in health technology assessments: A discussion paper. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2019;35:266–72. Epub 2019/07/24. doi:10.1017/S0266462319000552. PMID: 31337453.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mamzer, MF, Dubois, S, Saout, C;,les participants à la table ronde « Sujet d'actualité » des Ateliers de Giens XXXIII. Comment renforcer la place des patients dans les évaluations des technologies de santé faites par les autorités de santé. Therapie. 2018;73:83–93 (in French). Epub 2017/12/11. doi: 10.1016/j.therap.2017.11.003. PMID: 29429552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haute Autorité de Sante. Home Page. Available from: https://www.has-sante.fr/jcms/pprd_2986129/en/home [cited 2020 Dec 21].Google Scholar
European Commission. Ethics in Social Science and Humanities. 2018 [cited 2021 Mar 02]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/6._h2020_ethics-soc-science-humanities_en.pdf.Google Scholar
European Commission. Ethics and data protection. 2018 [cited 2021 Mar 02]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/ethics/h2020_hi_ethics-data-protection_en.pdf.Google Scholar
Facey, KM, Bedlington, N, Berglas, S, Bertelsen, N, Single, ANV, Thomas, V. Putting patients at the centre of healthcare: Progress and challenges for health technology assessments. Patient. 2018;11:581–9. doi:10.1007/s40271-018-0325-5. PMID: 30051315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Facey, KM. As health technology assessment evolves so must its approach to patient involvement. J Comp Eff Res. 2019;8:549–54. Epub 2019/05/22. doi:10.2217/cer-2019-0039. PMID: 31116026.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanstone, M, Abelson, J, Bidonde, J, Bond, K, Burgess, R, Canfield, C, et al. Ethical challenges related to patient involvement in Health Technology Assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2019;35:253–6. Epub 2019/06/28. doi:10.1017/S0266462319000382. PMID: 31250778.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huls, SPI, Whichello, CL, van Exel, J, Uyl-de Groot, CA, de Bekker-Grob, EW. What is next for patient preferences in health technology assessment? A systematic review of the challenges. Value Health. 2019;22:1318–28. Epub 2019/08/3. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2019.04.1930. PMID: 31708070.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mott, DJ. Incorporating quantitative patient preference data into healthcare decision making processes: Is HTA falling behind? Patient. 2018;11:249–52. doi:10.1007/s40271-018-0305-9. PMID: 29500706.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weeks, L, Polisena, J, Scott, AM, Holtorf, AP, Staniszewska, S, Facey, K. Evaluation of patient and public involvement initiatives in Healthcare Technology Assessment: A survey of international agencies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33:715–23. Epub 2017/11/10. doi:10.1017/S0266462317000976. PMID: 29122048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar