Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: A participatory approach

Access to novel drugs and therapeutics for children and youth: Eliciting citizens' values to inform public funding decisions

INTRODUCTION

The unique evidentiary, economic and ethical challenges associated with health technology assessment (HTA) of precision therapies limit access to novel drugs and therapeutics for children and youth, for whom such challenges are amplified. We elicited citizens' perspectives about values-based criteria relevant to the assessment of paediatric precision therapies to inform the development of a child-tailored HTA framework.

METHODS

We held four citizen panels virtually in May-June 2021, informed by a plain-language citizen brief summarizing global and local evidence about the challenges, policy and programmatic options and implementation strategies related to enhancing access to precision therapies for Canadian children and youth. Panellists were recruited through a nationally representative database, medical/patient networks and social media. We inductively coded and thematically analysed panel transcripts to generate themes and identify priority values.

RESULTS

The perspectives of panellists (n = 45) coalesced into four overlapping themes, with attendant subthemes, relevant to a child-tailored HTA framework: (1) Childhood Distinctions: vulnerability, 'fair innings', future potential, family impacts; (2) Voice: agency of children and youth; lived versus no lived experience; (3) One versus Many: disease severity, rarity, equity, unmet need and (4) Health System Governance: funding, implementation inequities, effectiveness and safety. Participants broadly agreed that childhood distinctions, particularly family impacts, justify child-tailored HTA. Dissent arose over whose voice should inform HTA and how such perspectives are best incorporated.

CONCLUSIONS

Citizens can offer unique insights into criteria relevant to the development or revision of HTA frameworks to capture holistic, societally responsive dimensions of value attached to unique contexts or populations, including children. Balancing the hopes and expectations of patients and caregivers for access to expensive but potential life-altering therapies against the opportunity costs borne by encompassing health systems is a fundamental challenge that will require rigorous methods to elicit, weigh and reconcile varied views.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

A patient advocate served on the steering committee of this study and co-authored this article. Key informants for the Citizen Brief included patient advocates and caregivers; a separate patient advocate reviewed the Brief before dissemination. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected from the general public and caregivers of children, with written consent.

Designing and Implementing Deliberative Processes for Health Technology Assessment: A Good Practices Report of a Joint HTAi/ISPOR Task Force

Objectives

Deliberative processes for health technology assessment (HTA) are intended to facilitate participatory decision making, using discussion and open dialogue between stake-holders. Increasing attention is being given to deliberative processes, but guidance is lacking for those who wish to design or use them. Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) and ISPOR—The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research initiated a joint Task Force to address this gap.

Methods

The joint Task Force consisted of fifteen members with different backgrounds, perspectives, and expertise relevant to the field. It developed guidance and a checklist for deliberative processes for HTA. The guidance builds upon the few, existing initiatives in the field, as well as input from the HTA community following an established consultation plan. In addition, the guidance was subject to two rounds of peer review.

Results

A deliberative process for HTA consists of procedures, activities, and events that support the informed and critical examination of an issue and the weighing of arguments and evidence to guide a subsequent decision. Guidance and an accompanying checklist are provided for (i) developing the governance and structure of an HTA program and (ii) informing how the various stages of an HTA process might be managed using deliberation.

Conclusions

The guidance and the checklist contain a series of questions, grouped by six phases of a model deliberative process. They are offered as practical tools for those wishing to establish or improve deliberative processes for HTA that are fit for local contexts. The tools can also be used for independent scrutiny of deliberative processes.

Designing and Implementing Deliberative Processes for Health Technology Assessment: A Good Practices Report of a Joint HTAi/ISPOR Task Force

OBJECTIVES

Deliberative processes for health technology assessment (HTA) are intended to facilitate participatory decision making, using discussion and open dialogue between stakeholders. Increasing attention is being given to deliberative processes, but guidance is lacking for those who wish to design or use them. Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) and ISPOR-The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research initiated a joint Task Force to address this gap.

METHODS

The joint Task Force consisted of 15 members with different backgrounds, perspectives, and expertise relevant to the field. It developed guidance and a checklist for deliberative processes for HTA. The guidance builds upon the few, existing initiatives in the field, as well as input from the HTA community following an established consultation plan. In addition, the guidance was subject to 2 rounds of peer review.

RESULTS

A deliberative process for HTA consists of procedures, activities, and events that support the informed and critical examination of an issue and the weighing of arguments and evidence to guide a subsequent decision. Guidance and an accompanying checklist are provided for (i) developing the governance and structure of an HTA program and (ii) informing how the various stages of an HTA process might be managed using deliberation.

CONCLUSIONS

The guidance and the checklist contain a series of questions, grouped by 6 phases of a model deliberative process. They are offered as practical tools for those wishing to establish or improve deliberative processes for HTA that are fit for local contexts. The tools can also be used for independent scrutiny of deliberative processes.

Valuation in health and ageing innovation practices

In the development and deployment of health and ageing innovations, underlying values such as privacy or quality of life are often seen as a relatively stable starting point, if considered at all. However, values are neither stable nor singular. This paper introduces a valuation framework to explore the co-constitution of values and technological innovations. A careful and ongoing reflection on values and valuation, in particular in innovation practices targeted at older people, is crucial when aiming to increase sustainable innovations. Therefore, we include a Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) perspective to technological development and innovation, to understand better the construction and co-constitution of ageing-in-place technologies. This framework is developed following a review of literature on values and valuation in the broad field of SSH. The proposed valuation framework consists of three core elements: (a) value multiplicity, (b) value dynamism, and (c) valuation implications. To demonstrate potential applicability of the framework, we conducted a thought experiment on values and valuation practices related to the development and potential further deployment of a COVID-19 health app in the Netherlands. This experiment pays special attention to multiple values at stake and implications for older adults who age in place. We argue this valuation framework provokes reflection on dynamic and multiple values underlying technology use and non-use, and contributes to responsible health and ageing innovations.

Health Technology Assessment Development in Vietnam: A Qualitative Study of Current Progress, Barriers, Facilitators, and Future Strategies

INTRODUCTION

To make more efficient use of limited resources, Vietnam incorporated health technology assessment (HTA) into the decision-making process for the health insurance benefit package in 2014. We evaluated progress in HTA institutionalization in Vietnam based on the theoretical framework developed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program, identified negative and conducive factors for HTA development, and finally suggested policy recommendations that fit the Vietnamese context.

METHODS

Semi-structured in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted between December 2017 and March and April 2018 with a purposive sample of 24 stakeholders involved in decision-making for health insurance reimbursement. We employed thematic analysis to examine themes within the data.

RESULTS

Despite a variety of activities (e.g., training and advising/mentoring) and a substantial level of output (e.g., policy statements, focal points assigned, and case studies/demonstration projects), Vietnam has not yet reached the policy decision stage based on HTA with scientific integrity and active stakeholder participation. Most respondents, except some clinicians, supported the use of HTA. The lack of capacity of human resources in the government sector and academia, the limited data infrastructure, the absence of guidelines, the government's interest in immediate budget-saving, and public resistance were identified as barriers to the advancement of HTA.

CONCLUSIONS

A structured data repository, guidelines based on the Vietnamese context for both policy decision-making at the central level and daily clinical decision-making at the micro-level, and integration of a participatory process into HTA are suggested as priorities for HTA institutionalization in Vietnam.

"Same same but different"? On the questionable but crucial differentiation between ethical and social aspects in health technology assessment

INTRODUCTION

Within health technology assessment (HTA), the demarcation of ethical and social aspects in two separate domains is a given fact. While an overlapping of ethical and social aspects is possible, this also raises theoretical and methodological questions, such as why overlaps happen (on the basis of which understanding of ethical and social aspects), or whether they are legitimate from a methodological point of view.

METHODS

We analyzed, on a basis of purposive sampling, a) two well-known HTA frameworks (HTA Core Model, INTEGRATE-HTA), b) methodological literature about ethical and/or social aspects in HTA, and c) published HTA reports from the German DAHTA database and the international CRD database regarding statements on the understanding (definition/characterization) and relationship between ethical and social aspects.

RESULTS

The frameworks used identical definitions for ethical aspects but deviated when it comes to social aspects. Methodological papers do not always provide a definition of social and ethical aspects. In the context of ethical aspects, they often refer back to ethics as a base discipline that deals with the motives and consequences of good and bad actions for ethical aspects, while for social aspects, there is orientation towards already existing checklists and methods, without reference to a base discipline such as sociology. The analyzed HTA reports barely offered details on their understanding of ethical or social aspects (7% of n = 33).

DISCUSSION

The problem of defining/characterizing and differentiating ethical and social aspects exists in both theory and practice. The impression is that little attention is paid to demarcations and overlaps, and that also the methodological literature has not yet thoroughly addressed the issue. While there are also pragmatic reasons for the possible ambiguity between the ethical and the social domains, deeper epistemological issues related to the multi-/interdisciplinarity nature of HTA will have to be considered, too, such as the danger of "disciplinary capture" (pressure on some domains and their basic disciplines, e.g., ethics, to adopt the concepts and standards of other domains that are more dominant in HTA, e.g., efficacy assessment/evidenced-based medicine).

CONCLUSION

The domains in HTA reports should be better described epistemologically and brought into a coherent relationship with each other. This is important to avoid unreasonable overlapping and possible problematic redundancy. Further, this could help with questions of adequate expertise and methods for the processing of all relevant information for solid technology assessment.

Towards an Explanation of the Social Value of Health Systems: An Interpretive Synthesis

BACKGROUND

Health systems are complex social systems, and values constitute a central dimension of their complexity. Values are commonly understood as key drivers of health system change, operating across all health systems components and functions. Moreover, health systems are understood to influence and generate social values, presenting an opportunity to harness health systems to build stronger, more cohesive societies. However, there is little investigation (theoretical, conceptual, or empirical) on social values in health policy and systems research (HPSR), particularly regarding the capacity of health systems to influence and generate social values. This study develops an explanatory theory for the 'social value of health systems.'

METHODS

We present the results of an interpretive synthesis of HPSR literature on social values, drawing on a qualitative systematic review, focusing on claims about the relationship between 'health systems' and 'social values.' We combined relational claims extracted from the literature under a common framework in order to generate new explanatory theory.

RESULTS

We identify four mechanisms by which health systems are considered to contribute social value to society: Health systems can: (1) offer a unifying national ideal and build social cohesion, (2) influence and legitimise popular attitudes about rights and entitlements with regard to healthcare and inform citizen's understanding of state responsibilities, (3) strengthen trust in the state and legitimise state authority, and (4) communicate the extent to which the state values various population groups.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that, using a systems-thinking and complex adaptive systems perspective, the above mechanisms can be explained as emergent properties of the dynamic network of values-based connections operating within health systems. We also demonstrate that this theory accounts for how HPSR authors write about the relationship between health systems and social values. Finally, we offer lessons for researchers and policy-makers seeking to bring about values-based change in health systems.

A Framework for Ethical Research and Innovation

In this contribution, we set out a framework for ethical research and innovation. Our framework draws upon recent scholarly work recommending the introduction of new models at the intersection of ethics, strategy, and science and technology studies to inform and explicate how the decisions of researchers can be considered ethical. Ethical research and innovation is construed in our framework as a dynamic process emerging from decisions of multiple stakeholders in innovation ecosystems prior to, during and after the execution of a research and innovation project. The framework can be used by different types of research organizations to implement governance models of ethical research and innovation.

Patient and public involvement in health technology assessment: update of a systematic review of international experiences

OBJECTIVE

To summarize current evidence on patient and public involvement (PPI) in health technology assessment (HTA) in order to synthesize the barriers and facilitators, and to propose a framework to assess its impact.

METHODS

We conducted an update of a systematic review published in 2011 considering the recent scientific literature (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies). We searched papers published between March 2009 (end of the initial search) and December 2019 in five databases using specific search strategies. We identified other publications through citation tracking and contacting authors of previous related studies. Reviewers independently selected relevant studies based on prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. We extracted information using a pre-established grid.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 7872 publications from the main search strategy. Ultimately, thirty-one distinct new studies met the inclusion criteria, whereas seventeen studies were included in the previous systematic review. PPI is realized through two main strategies: (i) patients and public members participate directly in decision-making processes (participation) and (ii) patients or public perspectives are solicited to inform decisions (consultation or indirect participation). This review synthesizes the barriers and facilitators to PPI in HTA, and a framework to assess its impact is proposed.

CONCLUSION

The number of studies on patients or public involvement in HTA has dramatically increased in recent years. Findings from this updated systematic review show that PPI is done mostly through consultation and that direct involvement is less frequent. Several barriers to PPI in HTA exist, notably the lack of information to patients and public about HTA and the lack of guidance and policies to support PPI in HTA.

Troutville: Where People Discuss Fairness Issues

Context. Public engagement efforts in health policy have posed many value-laden questions, yet those that appreciate the complexity and diversity of the concept of health equity are rare. We introduce the Fairness Dialogues, a new method for deliberating health equity among the general public. We provide its theoretical underpinning and present its empirical illustration and qualitative assessment. Methods. Primarily informed by the scholarship of deliberation, we designed the Fairness Dialogues, featured by reason-giving and inclusive group deliberation using a hypothetical scenario (the town of Troutville) that presents carefully designed, simple, open-ended cases focusing on a chosen equity and fairness issue. To assess whether the Fairness Dialogues encourages reflective views, we conducted a qualitative investigation by focusing on fairness and unfairness of inequalities in life expectancy. Findings. Our results revealed the complex intuitions that people have and their curiosity, patience, and willingness to scrutinize them in-depth through a small group dialogue. Intuitions shared by our study participants are similar to those presented in the scholarly philosophical literature. Conclusions. The Fairness Dialogues is a promising method to incorporate the public’s views into policy-making involving value judgment and to develop the capacity of the public to discuss value-laden questions in a reflective and inclusive manner.

Defining the role of the public in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and HTA-informed decision-making processes

Objectives

The terminology used to describe community participation in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is contested and frequently confusing. The terms patients, consumers, public, lay members, customers, users, citizens, and others have been variously used, sometimes interchangeably. Clarity in the use of terms and goals for including the different groups is needed to mitigate existing inconsistencies in the application of patient and public involvement (PPI) across HTA processes around the world.

Methods

We drew from a range of literature sources in order to conceptualize (i) an operational definition for the “public” and other stakeholders in the context of HTA and (ii) possible goals for their involvement. Draft definitions were tested and refined in an iterative consensus-building process with stakeholders from around the world.

Results

The goals, terminology, interests, and roles for PPI in HTA processes were clarified. The research provides rationales for why the role of the public should be distinguished from that of patients, their families, and caregivers. A definition for the public in the context of HTA was developed: A community member who holds the public interest and has no commercial, personal, or professional interest in the HTA process

Conclusions

There are two distinct aspects to the interests held by the public which should be explicitly included in the HTA process: the first lies in ensuring democratic accountability and the second in recognising the importance of including public values in decision making.

Deliberating as a Public Representative or as a Potential User? Two Complementary Perspectives that Should Inform Health Innovation Policy

While public involvement in health policy is gaining traction around the world, deciding whether practitioners of public involvement should encourage participants to deliberate from a personal or a collective perspective remains an object of contention. Drawing on an empirical study, the aim of this article is to generate methodological insights into these two perspectives. Our qualitative analyses illustrate how members of the public contributed differently to deliberations about the value of health innovations by alternatively sharing views as public representatives and as potential users. When engaging as public representatives, participants raised important collective concerns, and, when engaging as potential users, participants brought concrete details and contextual nuances to the group exchanges. Because these perspectives entail different yet mutually challenging ways of appraising health innovations, public engagement practitioners should foster both personal and collective perspectives.

The clinical application of gene editing: ethical and social issues

Gene-editing techniques have progressed rapidly in the past 5 years. There are already ongoing human somatic gene-editing clinical trials for multiple diseases. And there has been one purported scenario of human germline gene editing in late 2018. In this paper, we will review the current state of the technology, discuss the ethical and social issues that surround the various forms of gene editing, as well as review emerging stakeholder data from professionals, the ‘general public’ and individuals and families dealing with genetic diseases potentially treatable by gene editing.

Quantifying the public's view on social value judgments in vaccine decision-making: A discrete choice experiment

Vaccination programs generate direct protection, herd protection and, occasionally, side effects, distributed over different age groups. This study elicits the general public's view on how to balance these outcomes in funding decisions for vaccines. We performed an optimal design discrete choice experiment with partial profiles in a representative sample (N = 1499) of the population in the United Kingdom in November 2016. Using a panel mixed logit model, we quantified, for four different types of infectious disease, the importance of a person's age during disease, how disease was prevented-via direct vaccine protection or herd protection-and whether the vaccine induced side effects. Our study shows clear patterns in how the public values vaccination programs. These diverge from the assumptions made in public health and cost-effectiveness models that inform decision-making. We found that side effects and infections in newborns and children were of primary importance to the perceived value of a vaccination program. Averting side effects was, in any age group, weighted three times as important as preventing an identical natural infection in a child whereas the latter was weighted six times as important as preventing the same infection in elderly aged 65-75 years. These findings were independent of the length or severity of the disease, and were robust across respondents' backgrounds. We summarize these patterns in a set of preference weights that can be incorporated into future models. Although the normative significance of these weights remains a matter open for debate, our study can, hopefully, contribute to the evaluation of vaccination programs beyond cost-effectiveness.

Creating sustainable health care systems

PURPOSE

In order to create sustainable health systems, many countries are introducing ways to prioritise health services underpinned by a process of health technology assessment. While this approach requires technical judgements of clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness, these are embedded in a wider set of social (societal) value judgements, including fairness, responsiveness to need, non-discrimination and obligations of accountability and transparency. Implementing controversial decisions faces legal, political and public challenge. To help generate acceptance for the need for health prioritisation and the resulting decisions, the purpose of this paper is to develop a novel way of encouraging key stakeholders, especially patients and the public, to become involved in the prioritisation process.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

Through a multidisciplinary collaboration involving a series of international workshops, ethical and political theory (including accountability for reasonableness) have been applied to develop a practical way forward through the creation of a values framework. The authors have tested this framework in England and in New Zealand using a mixed-methods approach.

FINDINGS

A social values framework that consists of content and process values has been developed and converted into an online decision-making audit tool.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS

The authors have developed an easy to use method to help stakeholders (including the public) to understand the need for prioritisation of health services and to encourage their involvement. It provides a pragmatic way of harmonising different perspectives aimed at maximising health experience.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

All health care systems are facing increasing demands within finite resources. Although many countries are introducing ways to prioritise health services, the decisions often face legal, political, commercial and ethical challenge. The research will help health systems to respond to these challenges.

SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS

This study helps in increasing public involvement in complex health challenges.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

No other groups have used this combination of approaches to address this issue.

Addressing the affordability of cancer drugs: using deliberative public engagement to inform health policy

BACKGROUND

Health system expenditure on cancer drugs is rising rapidly in many OECD countries given the costly new treatments and increased rates of use due to a growing and ageing population. These factors put considerable strain on the sustainability of health systems worldwide, sparking public debate among clinicians, pharmaceutical companies, policy-makers and citizens on issues of affordability and equity. We engaged Canadians through a series of deliberative public engagement events to determine their priorities for making cancer drug funding decisions fair and sustainable in Canada's publicly financed health system.

METHODS

An approach to deliberation was developed based on the McMaster Health Forum's citizen panels and the established Burgess and O'Doherty model of deliberative public engagement. Six deliberations were held across Canada in 2016. Transcripts were coded in NVivo and analysed to determine where participants' views converged and diverged. Recommendations were grouped thematically.

RESULTS

A total of 115 Canadians participated in the deliberative events and developed 86 recommendations. Recommendations included the review and regular re-review of approved drugs using 'real-world' evidence on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; prioritisation of treatments that restore patients' independence, mental health and general well-being; ensuring that decision processes, results and their rationales are transparent; and commitment to people with similar needs receiving the same care regardless of where in Canada they live.

CONCLUSIONS

The next steps for policy-makers should be to develop mechanisms for (1) re-reviewing effectiveness and cost-effectiveness data for all cancer drugs; (2) making disinvestments in cancer drugs that satisfy requirements relating to grandfathering and compassionate access; (3) ensuring fair and equitable access to cancer drugs for all Canadians; and (4) fostering a pan-Canadian approach to cancer drug funding decisions.

[Ethics in health technology assessment. Review]

INTRODUCTION

Bioethics and the health technologies assessment emerged to help make decisions. The objective of the work was to know, with respect to the health technologies assessment, the scientific production on its ethical issues, the degree of incorporation of these in practice, the inclusion of the values in the deliberative processes and the most relevant approaches to ethical analysis.

METHODOLOGY

A narrative review was made, based on a systematic search of literature in both natural and hierarchical language, using the terms technology assessment biomedical, ethics and deliberation (and its related terms). All types of papers published between May 2007 and April 2017 in Spanish, French, English or Italian that included both ethical aspects and health technology assessment were included. The PUBMED, OVID-Medline, Scopus databases and secondary searches were explored from the identified works. The information was extracted by a single researcher and managed with Mendeley and EPIINFO 7.2.

RESULTS

A total of 141 papers were identified, including 85 after revision by title and summary, with the following characteristics: 29 reviews (5 systematic), 16 frameworks, 18 methodological works and 29 with description of experiences. Multiple frameworks, approaches and methods in ethical analysis were identified.

CONCLUSION

The health technologies assessment has an approach excessively mechanistic, and can be improved by incorporating the values of the stakeholder, through deliberative processes. The methods of ethical analysis that seem most suitable are the axiological ones and those developed specifically for the health technologies assessment.

Methods for Practising Ethics in Research and Innovation: A Literature Review, Critical Analysis and Recommendations

This paper provides a systematic literature review, analysis and discussion of methods that are proposed to practise ethics in research and innovation (R&I). Ethical considerations concerning the impacts of R&I are increasingly important, due to the quickening pace of technological innovation and the ubiquitous use of the outcomes of R&I processes in society. For this reason, several methods for practising ethics have been developed in different fields of R&I. The paper first of all presents a systematic search of academic sources that present and discuss such methods. Secondly, it provides a categorisation of these methods according to three main kinds: (1) ex ante methods, dealing with emerging technologies, (2) intra methods, dealing with technology design, and (3) ex post methods, dealing with ethical analysis of existing technologies. Thirdly, it discusses the methods by considering problems in the way they deal with the uncertainty of technological change, ethical technology design, the identification, analysis and resolving of ethical impacts of technologies and stakeholder participation. The results and discussion of our literature review are valuable for gaining an overview of the state of the art and serve as an outline of a future research agenda of methods for practising ethics in R&I.

Trade-offs, fairness, and funding for cancer drugs: key findings from a deliberative public engagement event in British Columbia, Canada

BACKGROUND

Spending on cancer drugs has risen dramatically in recent years compared to other areas of health care, due in part to higher prices associated with newly approved drugs and increased demand for these drugs. Addressing this situation requires making difficult trade-offs between cost, harms, and ability to benefit when using public resources, making it important for policy makers to have input from many people affected by the issue, including citizens.

METHODS

In September 2014, a deliberative public engagement event was conducted in Vancouver, British Columbia (BC), on the topic of priority setting and costly cancer drugs. The aim of the study was to gain citizens' input on the topic and have them generate recommendations that could inform cancer drug funding decisions in BC. A market research company was engaged to recruit members of the BC general public to deliberate over two weekends (four days) on how best to allocate resources for expensive cancer treatments. Participants were stratified based on the 2006 census data for BC. Participants were asked to discuss disinvestment, intravenous versus oral chemotherapy delivery, and decision governance. All sessions were audio recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using NVivo 11 software.

RESULTS

Twenty-four individuals participated in the event and generated 30 recommendations. Participants accepted the principle of resource scarcity and the need of governments to make difficult trade-offs when allocating health-care resources. They supported the view that cost-benefit thresholds must be set for high-cost drugs. They also expected reasonable health benefits in return for large expenditures, and supported the view that some drugs do not merit funding. Participants also wanted drug funding decisions to be made in a non-partisan and transparent way.

CONCLUSION

The recommendations from the Vancouver deliberation can provide guidance to policy makers in BC and may be useful in challenging pricing by pharmaceutical companies.

Women's perspectives on the ethical implications of non-invasive prenatal testing: a qualitative analysis to inform health policy decisions

BACKGROUND

Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) is a technology which provides information about fetal genetic characteristics (including sex) very early in pregnancy by examining fetal DNA obtained from a sample of maternal blood. NIPT is a morally complex technology that has advanced quickly to market with a strong push from industry developers, leaving many areas of uncertainty still to be resolved, and creating a strong need for health policy that reflects women's social and ethical values. We approach the need for ethical policy-making by studying the use of NIPT and emerging policy in the province of Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

Using an adapted version of constructivist grounded theory, we conducted interviews with 38 women who have had personal experiences with NIPT. We used an iterative process of data collection and analysis and a staged coding strategy to conduct a descriptive analysis of ethics issues identified implicitly and explicitly by women who have been affected by this technology.

RESULTS

The findings of this paper focus on current ethical issues for women seeking NIPT, including place in the prenatal pathway, health care provider counselling about the test, industry influence on the diffusion of NIPT, consequences of availability of test results. Other issues gain relevance in the context of future policy decisions regarding NIPT, including funding of NIPT and principles that may govern the expansion of the scope of NIPT. These findings are not an exhaustive list of all the potential ethical issues related to NIPT, but rather a representation of the issues which concern women who have personal experience with this test.

CONCLUSIONS

Women who have had personal experience with NIPT have concerns and priorities which sometimes contrast dramatically with the theoretical ethics literature. These findings suggest the importance of engaging patients in ethical deliberation about morally complex technologies, and point to the need for more deliberative patient engagement work in this area.

Patient and Public Involvement in the Development of Healthcare Guidance: An Overview of Current Methods and Future Challenges

Clinical guidelines and health technology assessments are valuable instruments to improve the quality of healthcare delivery and aim to integrate the best available evidence with real-world, expert context. The role of patient and public involvement in their development has grown in recent decades, and this article considers the international literature exploring aspects of this participation, including the integration of experiential and scientific knowledge, recruitment strategies, models of involvement, stages of involvement, and methods of evaluation. These developments have been underpinned by the parallel rise of public involvement and evidence-based medicine as important concepts in health policy. Improving the recruitment of guideline group chairs, widening evidence reviews to include patient preference studies, adapting guidance presentation to highlight patient preference points and providing clearer instructions on how patient organisations can submit their intelligence are emerging proposals that may further enhance patient and public involvement in their processes.

Integrating social justice concerns into economic evaluation for healthcare and public health: A systematic review

Social justice is the moral imperative to avoid and remediate unfair distributions of societal disadvantage. In priority setting in healthcare and public health, social justice reaches beyond fairness in the distribution of health outcomes and economic impacts to encompass fairness in the distribution of policy impacts upon other dimensions of well-being. There is an emerging awareness of the need for economic evaluation to integrate all such concerns. We performed a systematic review (1) to describe methodological solutions suitable for integrating social justice concerns into economic evaluation, and (2) to describe the challenges that those solutions face. To be included, publications must have captured fairness considerations that (a) involve cross-dimensional subjective personal life experience and (b) can be manifested at the level of subpopulations. We identified relevant publications using an electronic search in EMBASE, PubMed, EconLit, PsycInfo, Philosopher's Index, and Scopus, including publications available in English in the past 20 years. Two reviewers independently appraised candidate publications, extracted data, and synthesized findings in narrative form. Out of 2388 publications reviewed, 26 were included. Solutions sought either to incorporate relevant fairness considerations directly into economic evaluation or to report them alongside cost-effectiveness measures. The majority of reviewed solutions, if adapted to integrate social justice concerns, would require their explicit quantification. Four broad challenges related to the implementation of these solutions were identified: clarifying the normative basis; measuring and determining the relative importance of criteria representing that basis; combining the criteria; and evaluating trade-offs. All included solutions must grapple with an inherent tension: they must either face the normative and operational challenges of quantifying social justice concerns or accede to offering incomplete policy guidance. Interdisciplinary research and broader collaborations are crucial to address these challenges and to support due attention to social justice in priority setting.

Human Germline Genome Editing

With CRISPR/Cas9 and other genome-editing technologies, successful somatic and germline genome editing are becoming feasible. To respond, an American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) workgroup developed this position statement, which was approved by the ASHG Board in March 2017. The workgroup included representatives from the UK Association of Genetic Nurses and Counsellors, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, International Genetic Epidemiology Society, and US National Society of Genetic Counselors. These groups, as well as the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Asia Pacific Society of Human Genetics, British Society for Genetic Medicine, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, Professional Society of Genetic Counselors in Asia, and Southern African Society for Human Genetics, endorsed the final statement. The statement includes the following positions. (1) At this time, given the nature and number of unanswered scientific, ethical, and policy questions, it is inappropriate to perform germline gene editing that culminates in human pregnancy. (2) Currently, there is no reason to prohibit in vitro germline genome editing on human embryos and gametes, with appropriate oversight and consent from donors, to facilitate research on the possible future clinical applications of gene editing. There should be no prohibition on making public funds available to support this research. (3) Future clinical application of human germline genome editing should not proceed unless, at a minimum, there is (a) a compelling medical rationale, (b) an evidence base that supports its clinical use, (c) an ethical justification, and (d) a transparent public process to solicit and incorporate stakeholder input.

What factors determine the choice of public engagement undertaken by health technology assessment decision-making organizations?

Purpose Public engagement in health technology assessment (HTA) is increasingly considered crucial for good decision making. Determining the "right" type of engagement activity is key in achieving the appropriate consideration of public values. Little is known about the factors that determine how HTA organizations (HTAOs) decide on their method of public engagement, and there are a number of possible factors that might shape these decisions. The purpose of this paper is to understand the potential drivers of public engagement from an organizational perspective. Design/methodology/approach The published HTA literature is reviewed alongside existing frameworks of public engagement in order to elucidate key factors influencing the choice of public engagement process undertaken by HTAOs. A conceptual framework is then developed to illustrate the factors identified from the literature that appear to influence public engagement choice. Findings Determining the type of public engagement undertaken in HTA is based on multiple factors, some of which are not always explicitly acknowledged. These factors included the: perceived complexity of the policy-making issue, perceived impact of the decision, transparency and opportunities for public involvement in governance, as well as time and resource constraints. The influences of these factors vary depending on the context, indicating that a one size fits all approach to public engagement may not be effective. Originality/value Awareness of the various factors that might influence the type of public engagement undertaken would enable decision makers to reflect on their choices and be more accountable and transparent about their choice of engagement process in eliciting public values and preferences in a HTAO.

Assessment of a multimedia-based prospective method to support public deliberations on health technology design: participant survey findings and qualitative insights

Background

Using a combination of videos and online short stories, we conducted four face-to-face deliberative workshops in Montreal (Quebec, Canada) with members of the public who later joined additional participants in an online forum to discuss the social and ethical implications of prospective technologies. This paper presents the participants’ appraisal of our intervention and provides novel qualitative insights into the use of videos and online tools in public deliberations.

Methods

We applied a mixed-method study design. A self-administered survey contained open- and close-ended items using a 5-level Likert-like scale. Absolute frequencies and proportions for the close-ended items were compiled. Qualitative data included field notes, the transcripts of the workshops and the participants’ contributions to the online forum. The qualitative data were used to flesh out the survey data describing the participants’ appraisal of: 1) the multimedia components of our intervention; 2) its deliberative face-to-face and online processes; and 3) its perceived effects.

Results

Thirty-eight participants contributed to the workshops and 57 to the online forum. A total of 46 participants filled-in the survey, for a response rate of 73 % (46/63). The videos helped 96 % of the participants to understand the fictional technologies and the online scenarios helped 98 % to reflect about the issues raised. Up to 81 % considered the arguments of the other participants to be well thought-out. Nearly all participants felt comfortable sharing their ideas in both the face-to-face (89 %) and online environments (93 %), but 88 % preferred the face-to-face workshop. As a result of the intervention, 85 % reflected more about the pros and cons of technology and 94 % learned more about the way technologies may transform society.

Conclusions

This study confirms the methodological feasibility of a deliberative intervention whose originality lies in its use of videos and online scenarios. To increase deliberative depth and foster a strong engagement by all participants, face-to-face and online components need to be well integrated. Our findings suggest that online tools should be designed by considering, one the one hand, the participants’ self-perceived ability to share written comments and, on the other hand, the ease with which other participants can respond to such contributions.

CJCheck Stage 1: development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries - Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996-2015

Background

Opportunities for community members to actively participate in policy development are increasing. Community/citizen's juries (CJs) are a deliberative democratic process aimed to illicit informed community perspectives on difficult topics. But how comprehensive these processes are reported in peer‐reviewed literature is unknown. Adequate reporting of methodology enables others to judge process quality, compare outcomes, facilitate critical reflection and potentially repeat a process. We aimed to identify important elements for reporting CJs, to develop an initial checklist and to review published health and health policy CJs to examine reporting standards.

Design

Using the literature and expertise from CJ researchers and policy advisors, a list of important CJ reporting items was suggested and further refined. We then reviewed published CJs within the health literature and used the checklist to assess the comprehensiveness of reporting.

Results

CJCheck was developed and examined reporting of CJ planning, juror information, procedures and scheduling. We screened 1711 studies and extracted data from 38. No studies fully reported the checklist items. The item most consistently reported was juror numbers (92%, 35/38), while least reported was the availability of expert presentations (5%, 2/38). Recruitment strategies were described in 66% of studies (25/38); however, the frequency and timing of deliberations was inadequately described (29%, 11/38).

Conclusions

Currently CJ publications in health and health policy literature are inadequately reported, hampering their use in policy making. We propose broadening the CJCheck by creating a reporting standards template in collaboration with international CJ researchers, policy advisors and consumer representatives to ensure standardized, systematic and transparent reporting.

PUBLIC AND PATIENT INVOLVEMENT IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

OBJECTIVE

As health technology assessment (HTA) organizations in Canada and around the world seek to involve the public and patients in their activities, frameworks to guide decisions about whom to involve, through which mechanisms, and at what stages of the HTA process have been lacking. The aim of this study was to describe the development and outputs of a comprehensive framework for involving the public and patients in a government agency's HTA process.

METHODS

The framework was informed by a synthesis of international practice and published literature, a dialogue with local, national and international stakeholders, and the deliberations of a government agency's public engagement subcommittee in Ontario, Canada.

RESULTS

The practice and literature synthesis failed to identify a single, optimal approach to involving the public and patients in HTA. Choice of methods should be considered in the context of each HTA stage, goals for incorporating societal and/or patient perspectives into the process, and relevant societal and/or patient values at stake. The resulting framework is structured around four actionable elements: (i) guiding principles and goals for public and patient involvement (PPI) in HTA, (ii) the establishment of a common language to support PPI efforts, (iii) a flexible array of PPI approaches, and (iv) on-going evaluation of PPI to inform adjustments over time.

CONCLUSIONS

A public and patient involvement framework has been developed for implementation in a government agency's HTA process. Core elements of this framework may apply to other organizations responsible for HTA and health system quality improvement.

How do women trade-off benefits and risks in chemotherapy treatment decisions based on gene expression profiling for early-stage breast cancer? A discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVES

Gene expression profiling (GEP) of tumours informs baseline risk prediction, potentially affecting adjuvant chemotherapy decisions for women with early-stage breast cancer. Since only 15% will experience a recurrence, concerns have been raised about potential harms from overtreatment and high GEP costs in publicly funded healthcare systems. We aimed to estimate preferences and personal utility of GEP testing information and benefit-risk trade-offs in chemotherapy treatment decisions.

DESIGN, SETTING AND INTERVENTION

Based on literature review and findings from our qualitative research (focus groups, interviews with patients with breast cancer and medical oncologists), we developed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey and administered it via an internet panel. The DCE included 12 choice tasks with 5 attributes and 3 alternatives considering orthogonality, D-efficiency and level balance.

PARTICIPANTS

The DCE survey was administered to 1004 Canadian women from the general population.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Preferences were analysed using conditional logit and hierarchical Bayes and evaluated for goodness of fit. We conducted simulation analyses for alternative scenarios.

RESULTS

GEP test score indicating likely benefit from chemotherapy was the most important attribute. Doctor's clinical estimate of the risk of cancer returning, trust in your cancer doctor and side effects of chemotherapy (temporary and permanent) were relatively less important but showed significant differences among levels. In the scenario analyses, 78% were likely to choose chemotherapy in a high-risk scenario, 55% in a moderate-risk scenario and 33% in a low-risk scenario, with the other attributes held constant. A high GEP score was more important in influencing the choice of chemotherapy for those at intermediate clinical risk.

CONCLUSIONS

GEP testing information influences chemotherapy treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer and varies depending on clinical risk. Clinicians should be aware of these differences and tailor the use of GEP testing accordingly.

Using Newborn Screening Bloodspots for Research: Public Preferences for Policy Options

OBJECTIVES

Retaining residual newborn screening (NBS) bloodspots for medical research remains contentious. To inform this debate, we sought to understand public preferences for, and reasons for preferring, alternative policy options.

METHODS

We assessed preferences among 4 policy options for research use of residual bloodspots through a bilingual national Internet survey of a representative sample of Canadians. Fifty percent of respondents were randomly assigned to select reasons supporting these preferences. Understanding of and attitudes toward screening and research concepts, and demographics were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 1102 respondents (94% participation rate; 47% completion rate), the overall preference among policy options was ask permission (67%); this option was also the most acceptable choice (80%). Assume permission was acceptable to 46%, no permission required was acceptable to 29%, and no research allowed was acceptable to 26%. The acceptability of the ask permission option was reduced among participants assigned to the reasoning exercise (84% vs 76%; P = .004). Compared with assume/no permission required, ordered logistic regression showed a significant reduction in preference for the ask permission option with greater understanding of concepts (odds ratio, 0.87; P < .001), greater confidence in science (odds ratio, 0.16; P < .001), and a perceived responsibility to contribute to research (odds ratio, 0.39; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Surveyed Canadians prefer that explicit permission is sought for storage and research use of NBS bloodspots. This preference was diminished when reasons supporting and opposing routine storage, and other policy options, were presented. Findings warrant consideration as NBS communities strategize to respond to shifting legislative contexts.

The influence of gene expression profiling on decisional conflict in decision making for early-stage breast cancer chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Women with early-stage breast cancer, of whom only 15% will experience a recurrence, are often conflicted or uncertain about taking chemotherapy. Gene expression profiling (GEP) of tumours informs risk prediction, potentially affecting treatment decisions. We examined whether receiving a GEP test score reduces decisional conflict in chemotherapy treatment decision making.

METHODS

A general population sample of 200 women completed the decisional conflict scale (DCS) at baseline (no GEP test score scenario) and after (scenario with GEP test score added) completing a discrete choice experiment survey for early-stage breast cancer chemotherapy. We scaled the 16-item DCS total scores and subscores from 0 to 100 and calculated means, standard deviations and change in scores, with significance (p < 0.05) based on matched pairs t-tests.

RESULTS

We identified five respondent subgroups based on preferred treatment option; almost 40% did not change their chemotherapy decision after receiving GEP testing information. Total score and all subscores (uncertainty, informed, values clarity, support, and effective decision) decreased significantly in the respondent subgroup who were unsure about taking chemotherapy initially but changed to no chemotherapy (n =33). In the subgroup of respondents (n = 25) who chose chemotherapy initially but changed to unsure, effective decision subscore increased significantly. In the overall sample, changes in total and all subscores were non-significant.

CONCLUSIONS

GEP testing adds value for women initially unsure about chemotherapy treatment with a decrease in decisional conflict. However, for women who are confident about their treatment decisions, GEP testing may not add value. Decisions to request GEP testing should be personalised based on patient preferences.

Participatory health system priority setting: Evidence from a budget experiment

Budget experiments can provide additional guidance to health system reform requiring the identification of a subset of programs and services that accrue the highest social value to 'communities'. Such experiments simulate a realistic budget resource allocation assessment among competitive programs, and position citizens as decision makers responsible for making 'collective sacrifices'. This paper explores the use of a participatory budget experiment (with 88 participants clustered in social groups) to model public health care reform, drawing from a set of realistic scenarios for potential health care users. We measure preferences by employing a contingent ranking alongside a budget allocation exercise (termed 'willingness to assign') before and after program cost information is revealed. Evidence suggests that the budget experiment method tested is cognitively feasible and incentive compatible. The main downside is the existence of ex-ante "cost estimation" bias. Additionally, we find that participants appeared to underestimate the net social gain of redistributive programs. Relative social value estimates can serve as a guide to aid priority setting at a health system level.

Values associated with public involvement in health and social care research: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

Much has been written about public involvement (PI) in health and social care research, but underpinning values are rarely made explicit despite the potential for these to have significant influence on the practice and assessment of PI.

OBJECTIVE

The narrative review reported here is part of a larger MRC-funded study which is producing a framework and related guidance on assessing the impact of PI in health and social care research. The review aimed to identify and characterize the range of values associated with PI that are central elements of the framework.

METHODS

We undertook a review and narrative synthesis of diverse literatures of PI in health and social care research, including twenty existing reviews and twenty-four chapters in sixteen textbooks.

RESULTS

Three overarching value systems were identified, each containing five value clusters. (i) A system concerned with ethical and/or political issues including value clusters associated with empowerment; change/action; accountability/transparency; rights; and ethics (normative values). (ii). A system concerned with the consequences of public involvement in research including value clusters associated with effectiveness; quality/relevance; validity/reliability; representativeness/objectivity/generalizability; and evidence (substantive values). (iii) A system concerned with the conduct of public involvement in including value clusters associated with Partnership/equality; respect/trust; openness and honesty; independence; and clarity (process values).

CONCLUSION

Our review identified three systems associated with PI in health and social care research focused on normative, substantive and process values. The findings suggest that research teams should consider and make explicit the values they attach to PI in research and discuss ways in which potential tensions may be managed in order to maximize the benefits of PI for researchers, lay experts and the research.

BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS INFLUENCING ETHICAL EVALUATION IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Objectives: The objective of this study was to explore barriers and facilitators influencing the integration of ethical considerations in health technology assessment (HTA).

Methods: The study consisted of two complementary approaches: (a) a systematic review of the literature; and (b) an eighteen-item online survey that was distributed to fifty-six HTA agencies affiliated with the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment.

Results: The review identified twenty-six relevant articles. The most often cited barriers in the literature were: scarcity, heterogeneity and complexity of ethical analysis methods; challenges in translating ethical analysis results into knowledge that is useful for decision makers; and lack of organizational support in terms of required expertise, time and financial resources. The most frequently cited facilitators included: usage of value-based appraisal methods, stakeholder and public engagement, enhancement of practice guidelines, ethical expertise, and educational interventions.

Representatives of twenty-six (46.5 percent) agencies from nineteen countries completed the survey. A median of 10 percent (interquartile range, 5 percent to 50 percent) of the HTA products produced by the agencies was reported to include an assessment of ethical aspects. The most commonly perceived barriers were: limited ethical knowledge and expertise, insufficient time and resources, and difficulties in finding ethical evidence or using ethical guidelines. Educational interventions, demand by policy makers, and involvement of ethicists in HTA were the most commonly perceived facilitators.

Conclusions: Our results emphasize the importance of simplification of ethics methodology and development of good practice guidelines in HTA, as well as capacity building for engaging HTA practitioners in ethical analyses.

Predicting Vaccination Intention and Benefit and Risk Perceptions: The Incorporation of Affect, Trust, and Television Influence in a Dual-Mode Model

Major health behavior change models tend to consider health decisions as primarily resulting from a systematic appraisal of relevant beliefs, such as the perceived benefits and risks of a pharmacological intervention. Drawing on research from the disciplines of risk management, communication, and psychology, this study proposed the inclusion of a heuristic route in established theory and tested the direction of influence between heuristic and systematic process variables. Affect and social trust were included as key heuristics in the proposed dual-mode framework of health decision making. Furthermore, exposure to health-related coverage on television was considered potentially influential over both heuristic and systematic process variables. To test this framework, data were collected from a national probability sample of 584 adults in the United States in 2012 regarding their decision to vaccinate against a hypothetical avian flu. The results provided some support for the bidirectional influence between heuristic and systematic processing. Affect toward flu vaccination and trust in the Food and Drug Administration were found to be powerful predictors of vaccination intention, enhancing intention both directly and indirectly via certain systematic process variables. The direction of influence between perceived susceptibility and severity, on the one hand, and affect, on the other, is less clear, suggesting the need for further research. Contrary to the opinion of media critics, exposure to televised health coverage was negatively associated with the perceived risks of vaccination. Results from this study carry theoretical and practical implications, and applying this model to the acceptance of different health interventions constitutes an area for future inquiries.

REVEALING AND ACKNOWLEDGING VALUE JUDGMENTS IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Background:Although value issues are increasingly addressed in health technology assessment (HTA) reports, HTA is still seen as a scientific endeavor and sometimes contrasted with value judgments, which are considered arbitrary and unscientific. This article aims at illustrating how numerous value judgments are at play in the HTA process, and why it is important to acknowledge and address value judgments.

Methods:A panel of experts involved in HTA, including ethicists, scrutinized the HTA process with regard to implicit value judgments. It was analyzed whether these value judgments undermine the accountability of HTA results. The final results were obtained after several rounds of deliberation.

Results:Value judgments are identified before the assessment when identifying and selecting health technologies to assess, and as part of assessment. They are at play in the processes of deciding on how to select, frame, present, summarize or synthesize information in systematic reviews. Also, in economic analysis, value judgments are ubiquitous. Addressing the ethical, legal, and social issues of a given health technology involves moral, legal, and social value judgments by definition. So do the appraisal and the decision-making process.

Conclusions:HTA by and large is a process of value judgments. However, the preponderance of value judgments does not render HTA biased or flawed. On the contrary they are basic elements of the HTA process. Acknowledging and explicitly addressing value judgments may improve the accountability of HTA.

Involving patients in health technology funding decisions: stakeholder perspectives on processes used in Australia

BACKGROUND

Governments use a variety of processes to incorporate public perspectives into policymaking, but few studies have evaluated these processes from participants' point of view.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was twofold: to understand the perspectives of selected stakeholders with regard to involvement processes used by Australian Advisory Committees to engage the public and patients; and to identify barriers and facilitators to participation.

DESIGN

Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives of different stakeholder groups involved in health technology funding decisions in Australia. Data were collected and analysed using a theoretical framework created by Rowe and Frewer, but adapted to more fully acknowledge issues of power and influence.

RESULTS

Stakeholder groups disagreed as to what constitutes effective and inclusive patient involvement. Barriers reported by interviewees included poor communication, a lack of transparency, unworkable deadlines, and inadequate representativeness. Also described were problems associated with defining the task for patients and their advocates and with the timing of patient input in the decision-making process. Interviewees suggested that patient participation could be improved by increasing the number of patient organizations engaged in processes and including those organizations at different stages of decision making, especially earlier.

CONCLUSIONS

The different evaluations made by stakeholder groups appear to be underpinned by contrasting conceptions of public involvement and its value, in line with Graham Martin's work which distinguishes between 'technocratic' and 'democratic' public involvement. Understanding stakeholders' perspectives and the contrasting conceptions of public involvement could foster future agreement on which processes should be used to involve the public in decision making.

Assessing the impacts of citizen deliberations on the health technology process

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the impacts of a Citizens' Reference Panel on the deliberations of a provincial health technology advisory committee and its secretariat, which produce, recommendations for the use of health technologies in Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

A fourteen-member citizens' reference panel was convened five times between February 2009 and May 2010 to participate in informed, facilitated discussions to inform the assessment of individual technologies and provincial health technology assessment processes more generally. Qualitative data collection methods were used to document observed and perceived impacts of the citizens' panel on the health technology assessment (HTA) process.

RESULTS

Panel impacts were observed for all technologies reviewed, at two different stages in the HTA process, and represented macro- (raising awareness) and micro-level (informing recommendations) impacts. These impacts were shaped by periodic opportunities for direct and brokered exchange between the Panel and the expert advisory committee to clarify roles, foster accountability, and build trust. Our findings offer new insights about one of the main considerations in the design of deliberative participatory structures-how to maintain the independence of a citizens' panel while ensuring that their input is considered at key junctures in the HTA process.

CONCLUSIONS

Citizens' panels can exert various impacts on the HTA process. Ensuring these types of structures include opportunities for direct exchange between citizens and experts, to clarify roles, promote accountability, and build trust will facilitate their impacts in a variety of settings.

Q-ing for health--a new approach to eliciting the public's views on health care resource allocation

The elicitation of societal views about healthcare priority setting is an important, contemporary research area, and there are a number of studies that apply either qualitative techniques or quantitative preference elicitation methods. However, there are methodological challenges in connecting qualitative information (what perspectives exist about a subject) with quantitative questions (to what extent are those perspectives 'supported' in a wider population). In this paper, we present an integrated, mixed-methods approach to the elicitation of public perspectives in two linked studies applying Q methodology. In the first study, we identify three broad viewpoints on the subject of health priorities. In the second study, using Q-survey methods, we describe and illustrate methods to investigate the distribution of those views in the wider population. The findings of the second study suggest that no single viewpoint dominates and none of the three views represents a 'minority perspective'. We demonstrate the potential of Q methodology as a methodological framework that can be used to link qualitative and quantitative questions and suggest some advantages of this over other approaches. However, as this represents the first applied study of this kind, there are methodological questions that require further exploration and development.

Citizens' perspectives on personalized medicine: a qualitative public deliberation study

Our objective was to explore citizens' informed and reasoned values and expectations of personalized medicine, a timely yet novel genomics policy issue. A qualitative, public deliberation study was undertaken using a citizens' reference panel on health technologies, established to provide input to the health technology assessment process in Ontario, Canada. The citizens' panel consisted of five women and nine men, aged 18-71 years, with one member selected from each health authority region. There were shared expectations among the citizens' panel members for the potential of personalized medicine technologies to improve care, provided they are deemed clinically valid and effective. These expectations were tempered by concerns about value for money and the possibility that access to treatment may be limited by personalized medicine tests used to stratify patients. Although they questioned the presumed technological imperative presented by personalized medicine technologies, they called for increased efforts to prepare the health-care system to effectively integrate these technologies. This study represents an early but important effort to explore public values toward personalized medicine. This study also provides evidence of the public's ability to form coherent judgments about a new policy issue. Concerned that personalized tests might be used to ration care, they suggested that treatment should be made available if patients wanted it, irrespective of tests that indicate little benefit. This issue raises clinical and policy challenges that may undermine the value of personalized medicine. Further efforts to deliberate with the public are warranted to inform effective, efficient and equitable translation of personalized medicine.

Challenges to orphan drugs access in Eastern Europe: the case of Bulgaria

This article explores how an Eastern European country could deal with orphan drugs access, combining EU policies with its own national settings. The cross-sectional observational study takes the total number of orphan drugs (61) available on EU level by March 2011, and then consecutively filters it through the requirements and criteria of relevant Bulgarian legislation on registration, pricing and reimbursement of medicinal products, obtaining the final number of accessible orphan drugs (16) in Bulgaria. The study further evaluates the average time period from market authorisation to positive reimbursement decision by Bulgarian health authorities (43±29.1 months). Access to orphan drugs should be provided on a reasonable and justified basis. Having in mind the limited availability of resources, it is not a question whether to prioritise rarity, but to create legitimate mechanisms for properly assessing orphan drugs' value and optimally using this value, according to the society's needs and views. The analysis identifies four important challenges to orphan drugs' access in Eastern Europe: (1) elaboration of new orphan drugs pricing approaches, (2) further interaction of cost-effectiveness analysis with medical criteria, (3) active introduction of epidemiological registries for rare diseases, and (4) research of societal preferences and raising public awareness.

Priority setting of ICU resources in an influenza pandemic: a qualitative study of the Canadian public's perspectives

BACKGROUND

Pandemic influenza may exacerbate existing scarcity of life-saving medical resources. As a result, decision-makers may be faced with making tough choices about who will receive care and who will have to wait or go without. Although previous studies have explored ethical issues in priority setting from the perspective of clinicians and policymakers, there has been little investigation into how the public views priority setting during a pandemic influenza, in particular related to intensive care resources.

METHODS

To bridge this gap, we conducted three public town hall meetings across Canada to explore Canadian's perspectives on this ethical challenge. Town hall discussions group discussions were digitally recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Six interrelated themes emerged from the town hall discussions related to: ethical and empirical starting points for deliberation; criteria for setting priorities; pre-crisis planning; in-crisis decision-making; the need for public deliberation and input; and participants' deliberative struggle with the ethical issues.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings underscore the importance of public consultation in pandemic planning for sustaining public trust in a public health emergency. Participants appreciated the empirical and ethical uncertainty of decision-making in an influenza pandemic and demonstrated nuanced ethical reasoning about priority setting of intensive care resources in an influenza pandemic. Policymakers may benefit from a better understanding the public's empirical and ethical 'starting points' in developing effective pandemic plans.

An Equity Framework for Health Technology Assessments

Despite the inclusion of equity in the design of many health care systems, pragmatic tools for considering equity systematically, alongside the efficiency categories of cost-effectiveness in health technology assessment (HTA), remain underdeveloped. This article develops a framework to help decision makers supplement the standard efficiency criteria of HTA and avoid building inequities, explicit or implicit, into their methods. The framework is intended as a first step toward creating a checklist for alerting decision makers to a wide range of equity considerations for HTA. This framework is intended be used as part of the process through which advisory bodies receive their terms of reference; scope the agenda prior to the selection of a candidate intervention and its comparators for HTA; prepare background briefing for decision makers; and help to structure the discussion and composition of professional and lay advisory groups during the assessment process. The framework is offered as only a beginning of an ongoing process of deliberation and consultation, through which the matters covered can be expected to become more comprehensive and the record of past decisions and their contexts in any jurisdiction adopting the tool can serve to guide subsequent evidence gathering and decisions. In these ways, it may be hoped that equity will be more systematically and fully considered and implemented in both the procedures and decisions of HTA.