Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:36:16.015Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Moving cautiously: Public involvement and the health technology assessment community

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2011

François-Pierre Gauvin ,
Julia Abelson ,
Mita Giacomini ,
John Eyles  and
John N. Lavis
François-Pierre Gauvin
Affiliation:
Institut national de santé publique du Québec
Julia Abelson
Affiliation:
McMaster University and Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis
Mita Giacomini
Affiliation:
McMaster University
John Eyles
Affiliation:
McMaster University
John N. Lavis
Affiliation:
McMaster University and McMaster Health Forum
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: This study explores the factors that enhance or reduce the prospects for public involvement in the activities of health technology assessment (HTA) agencies.

Methods: The analytical framework for this study is based on the work of John W. Kingdon, which provides a comprehensive synthesis of the factors influencing governments and public organizations' agenda. The study draws insights from forty-two semistructured telephone interviews with informants involved in international HTA networks and/or in HTA agencies in Canada, Denmark, and the United Kingdom.

Results: This exploratory study suggests that the HTA community is moving toward greater public involvement. However, the HTA community remains cautious and ambivalent about the technical feasibility of public involvement, its acceptability to policy makers and practitioners, and its impacts on HTA agencies' resources and procedures.

Conclusions: The study stresses the importance of conducting rigorous and compelling evaluations to inform HTA agencies' decision to adopt, or reject, public involvement practices.

Keywords

Consumer participationTechnology assessmentCanadaDenmarkUnited Kingdom
Type
ASSESSMENTS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 43 - 49
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, Gauvin, F-P. Engaging citizens: One route to health care accountability. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks; 2004. http://cprn.org/documents/28104_en.pdf (accessed September 27, 2010).Google Scholar
2. Abelson, J, Giacomini, M, Lehoux P, Gauvin F-P. Bringing ‘the public’ into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice. Health Policy. 2007;82:37–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Banta, D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy. 2003;63:121–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Baumgartner, FR, Jones, BD. Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1993.Google Scholar
5. Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis. Citizens panel contributes to assessment process for Ontario's health technologies. Hamilton: Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, 2009. http://www.chepa.org/News-Archives/09-10-27/Citizens_panel_contributes_to_assessment_process_for_Ontario_s_health_technologies.aspx (accessed September 27, 2010).Google Scholar
6. Chinitz, D. Health technology assessment in four countries: Response from political science. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:55–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. 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
8. Davies, C, Wetherell, M, Barnett, E, Seymour-Smith, S. Opening the box: Evaluating the Citizens Council of NICE. London: School of Health and Social Welfare and Psychology Discipline, Open University; 2005. http://www.pcpoh.bham.ac.uk/publichealth/methodology/docs/invitations/Citizens_council_Mar05.pdf (accessed September 27, 2010).Google Scholar
9. Florin, D, Dixon, J. Public involvement in health care. BMJ. 2004;328:159–161.Google Scholar
10. Gauvin, F-P. Public involvement in health technology assessment agencies: A comparative analysis of Canada, Denmark and the United Kingdom. Health Research Methodology Doctoral Programme. Hamilton, Ontario: McMaster University; 2008:236.Google Scholar
11. Gauvin, F-P, 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
12. 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
13. Health Technology Assessment International. Patient and citizen involvement. 2010. http://www.htai.org/index.php?id=545 (accessed September 27, 2010).Google Scholar
14. INAHTA Ethics Working Group. INAHTA Ethics Working Group on handling ethical issues. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment; 2005:30. http://www.inahta.org/upload/Final%20report%20Ethics%20in%20HTA%20Nov%2007.pdf (accessed September 27, 2010).Google Scholar
15. Jorgensen, T, Hvenegaard, A, Kristensen, FB. Health technology assessment in Denmark. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:347–381.Google Scholar
16. Kingdon, JW. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. 2nd ed. New York: Longman; 2003.Google Scholar
17. Lehoux, P. The problem of health technology: Policy implications for modern health care systems. New York: Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group; 2006.Google Scholar
18. Leys, M. Health technology assessment: The contribution of qualitative research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:317–329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. McDaid, D. Co-ordinating health technology assessment in Canada: A European perspective. Health Policy. 2003;63:205–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Morse, JM, Mitcham, C. Exploring qualitatively-derived concepts: Inductive-deductive pitfalls. Int J Qual Methods. 2002;1:1–13.Google Scholar
21. Moynihan, R, Oxmand, AD, Lavis, JN, Paulsen, E. Evidence-informed health policy: Using research to make health systems healthier. Oslo: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services; 2008:112. http://www.kunnskapssenteret.no/binary?id=1233 (accessed September 27, 2010).Google ScholarPubMed
22. Oliver, S, Armes, D, Gyte, G. Evaluation of public influence on the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme (Executive summary). London: Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London; 2006:12. http://www.hta.ac.uk/public/evaluation_execsumm.pdf (accessed September 27, 2010).Google Scholar
23. Strandberg-Larsen, M, Nielsen, MB, Vallgarda, S, et al. Denmark: Health system review. Health Syst transit. 2007;9:187. http://www.euro.who.int/_data/assets/pdf_file/0004/80581/E91190.pdf (accessed September 27, 2010).Google Scholar
24. Strauss, AL, Corbin, J. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1998.Google Scholar
25. ten Have, H. Ethical perspectives on health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:71–76.Google Scholar