Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T03:43:32.625Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of the impact of patient involvement in health technology assessments: A scoping review

Part of: Special Collection - Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2020

Robert J. Mason Open the ORCID record for Robert J. Mason [Opens in a new window] ,
Karlee M. Searle ,
Yvonne Bombard ,
Amanda Rahmadian ,
Alexandra Chambers ,
Helen Mai ,
Marjorie Morrison ,
Kelvin K. W. Chan  and
Katarzyna J. Jerzak
Robert J. Mason*
Affiliation:
Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Karlee M. Searle
Affiliation:
Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Yvonne Bombard
Affiliation:
Li Ka Shing Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Amanda Rahmadian
Affiliation:
Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Alexandra Chambers
Affiliation:
Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Helen Mai
Affiliation:
Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Marjorie Morrison
Affiliation:
Canadian Cancer Action Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Kelvin K. W. Chan
Affiliation:
The Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Katarzyna J. Jerzak
Affiliation:
Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
*
Author for correspondence: Robert J. Mason, E-mail: r5mason@edu.uwaterloo.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

While involving patients in health technology assessment (HTA) has become increasingly common and important around the world, little is known about the optimal methods of evaluating patients’ involvement (PI) in HTA. This scoping review was undertaken to provide an overview of currently available methods for the evaluation of PI, specifically the impact of PI on HTA recommendations.

Methods

A literature search was conducted using nine databases as well as a grey literature search of the websites of 26 organizations related to the conduct, practice or research of HTA to identify articles, reports and abstracts related to the evaluation of PI impact in HTA.

Results

We identified 1,248 unique citations, six of which met our eligibility criteria. These six records (five articles, and one report) were all published after 2012. Four assessed the impact of patient experience submissions on final HTA recommendations; one evaluated the impact of direct involvement on HTA committees, and one assessed impact of multiple forms of involvement. Methods of evaluation included quantitative analyses of reimbursement decisions, qualitative interviews with those directly involved in an assessment, surveys of patient groups and committee members, and the review of HTA reports.

Conclusions

Quantitative evaluation of PI based on associations with funding decisions may not be feasible or fully capture the relevant impact of PI in the assessment of health technologies. Rather, a combination of both qualitative and quantitative strategies may allow for the most comprehensive assessment of the impact of PI on HTA recommendations when possible.

Keywords

Technology assessmentBiomedicalPatient participationReview
Type
Method
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , June 2020 , pp. 217 - 223
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020

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.)

Footnotes

*

KJJ and KKWC contributed to the manuscript equally.

References

INAHTA (2019) What is Health Technology Assessment (HTA)? International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. Available from: http://www.inahta.org (accessed 17 July 2019).Google Scholar
Abelson, J, Wagner, F, DeJean, D, Boseveld, S, Gauvin, FP, Bean, S et al. (2016) Public and patient involvement in health technology assessment: A framework for action. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 32:256–64. doi: 10.1017/S0266462316000362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooker, AS, Carcone, S, Witteman, W, Krahn, M (2013) Quantitative patient preference evidence for health technology assessment: A case study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 29:290–300. doi: 10.1017/S0266462313000329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Messina, J, Grainger, DL (2012) A pilot study to identify areas for further improvements in patient and public involvement in health technology assessments for medicines. Patient. 5:199–211. doi: 10.2165/11597080-000000000-00000.Google ScholarPubMed
Rozmovits, L, Mai, H, Chambers, A, Chan, KKW (2018) What does meaningful look like? A qualitative study of patient engagement at the pan-Canadian oncology drug review: Perspectives of reviews and payers. J Health Serv Res Policy. 23:72–79. doi: 10.1177/1355819617750686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abelson, J, Forest, PG, Eyles, J, Smith, P, Martin, E, Gauvin, FP (2003) Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc Sci Med. 57:239–51.10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00343-XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
INVOLVE (2012) Briefing notes for researchers: public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. Available from: http://www.invo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/INVOLVEBriefingNotesApr2012.pdf (accessed 17 July 2019).Google Scholar
Facey, KM, Single, ANV. Patient input to HTA. In: Facey, KM, Hansen, HP, Single, ANV, editors. Patient involvement in health technology assessment. Singapore: Springer; 2017, p. 67-79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esmail, L, Moore, E, Rein, A (2015) Evaluating patient and stakeholder engagement in research: Moving from theory to practice. J Comp Eff Res. 4:133–45. doi: 10.2217/cer.14.79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barham, L (2011) Public and patient involvement at the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Patient. 4:1–10. doi: 10.2165/11586090-000000000-00000.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansen, HP, Lee, A, van Randwijk, CB (2011) Patient aspects: A review of fifty-eight Danish HTA reports. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 27:330–36. doi: 10.1017/S0266462311000535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hameen-Anttila, K, Komulainen, J, Enlund, H, Mäkelä, M, Mäkinen, E, Rannanheimo, P et al. (2016) Incorporating patient perspectives in health technology assessments and clinical practice guidelines. Res Social Adm Pharm. 12:903–13. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2015.12.005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lopes, E, Carter, D, Street, J (2015) Power relations and contrasting conceptions of evidence in patient-involvement processes used to inform health funding decisions in Australia. Soc Sci Med. 135:84–91. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.04.021.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weeks, L, Polisena, J, Scott, AM, AP, Holtorf, Staniszewska, S, Facey, K (2017) Evaluation of patient and public involvement initiatives in health technology assessment: A survey of international agencies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 33:715–23. doi: 10.1017/S0266462317000976.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abelson, J, Bombard, Y, Gauvin, FP, Simeonov, D, Boesveld, S (2013) Assessing the impacts of citizen deliberations on the health technology process. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 29:282–9. doi: 10.1017/S0266462313000299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, AM, Wale, JL (2017) Patient advocate perspectives on involvement in HTA: An international snapshot. Res Involv Engagem. 3:2. doi: 10.1186/s40900-016-0052-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dipankui, MT, Gagnon, MP, Desmartis, M, Légaré, F, Piron, F, Gagnon, J et al. (2015) Evaluation of patient involvement in a health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 31:166–70. doi: 10.1017/S0266462315000240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, MD, Godfrey, CM, Khalil, H, McInerney, P, Parker, D, Soares, CB (2015) Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 13:141–46. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arksey, H, O'Malley, L (2005) Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 8:19–32. doi: 10.1080/1364557032000119616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levac, D, Colquhoun, H, O'Brien, KK (2010) Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 5:69. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fleiss, JL, Levin, B, Paik, MC (2003) Statistical methods for rates and proportions (3rd ed.). Hoboken, N.J.: J. Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mavris, M, Le Cam, Y (2012) Involvement of patient organisations in research and development of orphan drugs for rare diseases in Europe. Mol Syndromol. 3:237–43. doi: 10.1159/000342758.Google ScholarPubMed
Berglas, S, Jutai, L, MacKean, G, Weeks, L (2016) Patients' perspectives can be integrated in health technology assessments: An exploratory analysis of CADTH common drug review. Res Involv Engagem. 2:21. doi: 10.1186/s40900-016-0036-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamilton, KA, Griffiths, M, Hanman, K (2016) Patient Group Submissions (PGSS) in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) In Scotland: Prevalence and impact. Value Health. 19:A440. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.09.540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staley, K, Doherty, C (2016) It's not evidence, it's insight: Bringing patients’ perspectives into health technology appraisal at NICE. Res Involv Engagem. 2:4. doi: 10.1186/s40900-016-0018-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, R, Versoza, L, Jaksa, A, Ho, Y (2015) How influential are patient and professional group submissions on reimbursement decisions for European medicines agency orphan drugs? Value Health. 18:A306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EPF (2013) Patient involvement in health technology assessment in Europe: Results of the EPF Survey. Available from: http://www.eu-patient.eu/globalassets/projects/hta/hta-epf-final-report2013.pdf (accessed 2017 October 26).Google Scholar
Johnson, RB, Onwuegbuzie, AJ, Turner, LA (2007) Toward a definition of mixed methods research. J Mix Methods Res. 1(2):112–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joensson, ABR, Baker, V (2015) Perceptions of patient involvement among health professionals in Denmark, a mixed method study. Eur J Public Health. 25:307–8. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckv175.088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanney, S, Buxton, M, Green, C, Coulson, D, Raftery, J (2007) An assessment of the impact of the NHS health technology assessment programme. Health Technol Assess. 11:1–200. doi: 10.3310/hta11530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skedgel, C, Wranik, D, Hu, M (2018) The relative importance of clinical, economic, patient values and feasibility criteria in cancer drug reimbursement in Canada: A revealed preferences analysis of recommendations of the Pan-Canadian oncology drug review 2011–2017. Pharmacoeconomics. 36:467-75. doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0610-0.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abelson, J (2018) Patient engagement in health technology assessment: What constitutes ‘meaningful’ and how we might get there. J Health Serv Res Policy. 23:69–71. doi: 10.1177/1355819618756936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagnon, MP, Dipankui, MT, DeJean, D. Evaluation of patient involvement in HTA. In: Facey, KM, Hansen, HP, Single, ANV, editors. Patient involvement in health technology assessment. Singapore: Springer; 2017, p. 201-13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Mason et al. supplementary material

Mason et al. supplementary material 3

Download Mason et al. supplementary material(File)
File 19.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

Ferreira et al. supplementary material

Mason et al. supplementary material 1

Download Ferreira et al. supplementary material(File)
File 16.5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Mason et al. supplementary material

Mason et al. supplementary material 2

Download Mason et al. supplementary material(File)
File 13.3 KB