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

Patients' perspectives on ethical principles to fairly allocate scarce surgical resources during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands: a Q-methodology study

OBJECTIVES

During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare professionals were faced with prioritisation dilemmas due to limited surgical capacity. While the views of healthcare professionals on fair allocation have been given considerable attention, the views of patients have been overlooked. To address this imbalance, our study aimed to identify which ethical principles are most supported by patients regarding the fair allocation of surgical resources.

DESIGN

A Q-methodology study was conducted. Participants ranked ordered 20 statements covering different viewpoints on fair allocation according to their point of view, followed by an interview. Principal component analysis followed by varimax rotation was used to identify subgroups who broadly agreed in terms of their rankings.

SETTING

The setting of this study was in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

16 patient representatives were purposively sampled.

RESULTS

Two perspectives were identified, both of which supported utilitarianism. In perspective 1, labelled as 'clinical needs and outcomes', resource allocation should aim to maximise the health gains based on individual patient characteristics. In perspective 2, labelled as 'population outcomes and contribution to society', allocation should maximise health gains as with perspective 1, but this should also consider societal gains.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a broad agreement among patient representatives that utilitarianism should be the guiding ethical principle for fair allocation of scarce surgical resources. The insights gained from this study should be integrated into policymaking and prioritisation strategies in future healthcare crises.

Managing vestibular schwannomas with radiosurgery and radiotherapy: AGREE II appraisal of clinical practice guidelines

INTRODUCTION

Vestibular schwannomas (VSs) are rare, benign intracranial tumours that have prompted clinical practice guideline (CPG) creation given their complex management. Our aim was to utilize the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument to assess if such CPGs on the management of VSs with radiosurgery and radiotherapy are of acceptable quality.

METHODS

Relevant CPGs were identified following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocols. Experienced reviewers then extracted general CPG properties and rated their quality via the AGREE II instrument. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were quantified to assess interrater reliability.

RESULTS

Nine CPGs on the management of VSs with radiosurgery and radiotherapy were identified. All CPGs were created in the past six years and developed recommendations based on literature review and expert consensus. One guideline was deemed as high quality with seven others being moderate and one being low in quality. The clarity of the presentation domain had the highest mean scaled domain score of 96.0%. The domains of stakeholder involvement and applicability had the lowest means of 49.2% and 47.2%, respectively. ICCs were either good or excellent across all domains.

CONCLUSION

Current CPGs on the management of VSs with radiosurgery and radiotherapy are of acceptable quality but would greatly benefit from improvements in applicability, stakeholder involvement, editorial independence and rigour of development. We recommend CPG authors reference the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO) guideline as a developmental framework with the Congress of Neurological Surgeons/American Association of Neurological Surgeons (CNS/AANS) CPG being a valid alternative.

Stakeholders' Involvement in Health Technology Assessment in Kazakhstan, Poland and Bulgaria

Background

In recent years, involvement of healthcare stakeholders in health technology assessment (HTA) has been discussed as helping the inclusion of social values in the decision-making process. The aim of our research was to identify and compare details from Kazakhstan, Poland and Bulgaria on their stakeholders' involvement in the HTA process. Information was sought on their identification, responsibilities, and regulation.

Methods

We conducted a survey of seven types of stakeholders in the healthcare systems of Kazakhstan, Poland, and Bulgaria. They included patients and the public, providers, purchasers, payers, policy makers, product makers, and principal investigators. They were questioned on their involvement in the HTA process, and on the objectives of their participation.

Results

Levels of involvement of different kinds of stakeholder varied between countries, reflecting political and administrative developments. There was full or partial agreement on the objectives of stakeholder participation. All respondents agreed that representatives of the ministry of health should be involved in selection of stakeholders for HTA.

Conclusion

Progress has been made in the involvement of stakeholders, with interest in further development in all three countries.

Perceptions and engagement of patients with chronic conditions on the use of medical cannabis: a scoping review

CONTEXT

Studies generally focus on one type of chronic condition and the effect of medical cannabis (MC) on symptoms; little is known about the perceptions and engagement of patients living with chronic conditions regarding the use of MC.

OBJECTIVES

This scoping review aims to explore: (1) what are the dimensions addressed in studies on MC that deal with patients' perceptions of MC? and (2) how have patients been engaged in developing these studies and their methodologies? Through these objectives, we have identified areas for improving future research.

METHODS

We searched five databases and applied exclusion criteria to select relevant articles. A thematic analysis approach was used to identify the main themes: (1) reasons to use, to stop using or not to use MC, (2) effects of MC on patients themselves and empowerment, (3) perspective and knowledge about MC, and (4) discussion with relatives and healthcare professionals.

RESULTS

Of 53 articles, the main interest when assessing the perceptions of MC is to identify the reasons to use MC (n = 39), while few articles focused on the reasons leading to stop using MC (n = 13). The majority (85%) appraise the effects of MC as perceived by patients. Less than one third assessed patients' sense of empowerment. Articles determining the beliefs surrounding and knowledge of MC (n = 41) generally addressed the concerns about or the comfort level with respect to using MC. Only six articles assessed patients' stereotypes regarding cannabis. Concerns about stigma constituted the main topic while assessing relationships with relatives. Some articles included patients in the research, but none of them had co-created the data collection tool with patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review outlined that few studies considered chronic diseases as a whole and that few patients are involved in the co-construction of data collection tools as well. There is an evidence gap concerning the results in terms of methodological quality when engaging patients in their design. Future research should evaluate why cannabis' effectiveness varies between patients, and how access affects the decision to use or not to use MC, particularly regarding the relationship between patients and healthcare providers. Future research should consider age and gender while assessing perceptions and should take into consideration the legislation status of cannabis as these factors could in fact shape perception. To reduce stigma and stereotypes about MC users, better quality and accessible information on MC should be disseminated.

Adapting and Evaluating an AI-Based Chatbot Through Patient and Stakeholder Engagement to Provide Information for Different Health Conditions: Master Protocol for an Adaptive Platform Trial (the MARVIN Chatbots Study)

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence (AI)-based chatbots could help address some of the challenges patients face in acquiring information essential to their self-health management, including unreliable sources and overburdened health care professionals. Research to ensure the proper design, implementation, and uptake of chatbots is imperative. Inclusive digital health research and responsible AI integration into health care require active and sustained patient and stakeholder engagement, yet corresponding activities and guidance are limited for this purpose.

OBJECTIVE

In response, this manuscript presents a master protocol for the development, testing, and implementation of a chatbot family in partnership with stakeholders. This protocol aims to help efficiently translate an initial chatbot intervention (MARVIN) to multiple health domains and populations.

METHODS

The MARVIN chatbots study has an adaptive platform trial design consisting of multiple parallel individual chatbot substudies with four common objectives: (1) co-construct a tailored AI chatbot for a specific health care setting, (2) assess its usability with a small sample of participants, (3) measure implementation outcomes (usability, acceptability, appropriateness, adoption, and fidelity) within a large sample, and (4) evaluate the impact of patient and stakeholder partnerships on chatbot development. For objective 1, a needs assessment will be conducted within the setting, involving four 2-hour focus groups with 5 participants each. Then, a co-construction design committee will be formed with patient partners, health care professionals, and researchers who will participate in 6 workshops for chatbot development, testing, and improvement. For objective 2, a total of 30 participants will interact with the prototype for 3 weeks and assess its usability through a survey and 3 focus groups. Positive usability outcomes will lead to the initiation of objective 3, whereby the public will be able to access the chatbot for a 12-month real-world implementation study using web-based questionnaires to measure usability, acceptability, and appropriateness for 150 participants and meta-use data to inform adoption and fidelity. After each objective, for objective 4, focus groups will be conducted with the design committee to better understand their perspectives on the engagement process.

RESULTS

From July 2022 to October 2023, this master protocol led to four substudies conducted at the McGill University Health Centre or the Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (both in Montreal, Quebec, Canada): (1) MARVIN for HIV (large-scale implementation expected in mid-2024), (2) MARVIN-Pharma for community pharmacists providing HIV care (usability study planned for mid-2024), (3) MARVINA for breast cancer, and (4) MARVIN-CHAMP for pediatric infectious conditions (both in preparation, with development to begin in early 2024).

CONCLUSIONS

This master protocol offers an approach to chatbot development in partnership with patients and health care professionals that includes a comprehensive assessment of implementation outcomes. It also contributes to best practice recommendations for patient and stakeholder engagement in digital health research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05789901; https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05789901.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/54668.

How to mobilise users' experiential knowledge in the evaluation of advanced technologies and practices in Quebec? The example of the permanent users' and relatives' panel

INTRODUCTION

With the purpose of supporting scientific professionals and helping them to better integrate the expertise of users in their work, a users' and relatives' panel (URP) was set up at the National Institute for Excellence in Health and Social Services in Quebec (INESSS), Canada for the social services and mental health directorate. URPs are advisory structures that mobilise the experiential knowledge of people affected by various issues.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to assess from a diverse stakeholders' perceptions: (1) the experience of developing and implementing the URP within the context of an Agencies for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (AHTAASS), (2) the contribution of such a URP, (3) the challenges encountered and (4) the perspectives of improvement for the following years.

METHODOLOGY

We conducted a qualitative descriptive evaluation study. Nineteen interviews were conducted: six with URP members and 13 with staff representatives. The documents related to the creation of the panel, the URP minutes summarising the discussions and the reports published during that period were collected and analysed. Following a preliminary round of data analysis, a debriefing meeting was conducted with a few participants to validate the results.

RESULTS

The panel was set up as part of the INESSS' desire to better integrate experiential knowledge into its recommendations. Twelve projects were presented to the panel on various themes. The URP enabled health professionals to consider dimensions they had not identified, to better integrate the experiential data collected from users into their work and to develop recommendations that made more sense to users. Panel members and INESSS professionals learned to work together, moving the working methods from consultation to collaboration and even coconstruction. Based on the panel's significant contribution, the INESSS decided to maintain it and to strengthen its place in its system to better integrate the experiential knowledge of users into its work.

CONCLUSION

This research illustrates how AHTAASS can set up a URP composed exclusively of users, and how it can contribute and be evaluated. It shows that URPs are structures that value the sharing of experiential knowledge of its members, humanise decision-making and give meaning to the work done by scientific professionals.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

One patient-researcher has contributed to the preparation and writing of this manuscript.

Health technology assessment (HTA) readiness in Uganda: stakeholder's perceptions on the potential application of HTA to support national universal health coverage efforts

INTRODUCTION

Health technology assessment (HTA) is an area that remains less implemented in low- and lower middle-income countries. The aim of the study is to understand the perceptions of stakeholders in Uganda toward HTA and its role in decision making, in order to inform its potential implementation in the country.

METHODS

The study takes a cross-sectional mixed methods approach, utilizing an adapted version of the International Decision Support Initiative questionnaire with both semi-structured and open-ended questions. We interviewed thirty key informants from different stakeholder institutions in Uganda that support policy and decision making in the health sector.

RESULTS

All participants perceived HTA as an important tool for decision making. Allocative efficiency was regarded as the most important use of HTA receiving the highest average score (8.8 out of 10), followed by quality of healthcare (7.8/10), transparency (7.6/10), budget control (7.5/10), and equity (6.5/10). There was concern that some of the uses of HTA may not be achieved in reality if there was political interference during the HTA process. The study participants identified development partners as the most likely potential users of HTA (66.7 percent of participants), followed by Ministry of Health (43.3 percent).

CONCLUSION

Interviewed stakeholders in Uganda viewed the role of HTA positively, suggesting that there exists a promising environment for the establishment and operationalization of HTA as a tool for decision making within the health sector. However, sustainable development and application of HTA in Uganda will require adequate capacity both to undertake HTAs and to support their use and uptake.

Does patient and public involvement impact public health decision-making? A 10 year retrospective analysis of public consultation in Brazil

BACKGROUND

 The aim of this work is to characterize the processes associated with patient and public involvement (PPI) in the form of public consultations (PC) during the first 10 years of operation of the National Committee for Health Technology Incorporation in the Unified Health System (Conitec) of Brazil, and to identify factors associated with changes in Conitec's recommendations following these PC.

METHODS

 This cross-sectional study analysed all processes related to the adoption of technologies that took place in Brazil between 2012 and 2021 based on technical reports and self-reported information collected from PC participants. A multiple logistic regression model identified factors associated with changes in Conitec's recommendations following PC.

RESULTS

 A total of 479 technical reports were published, of which 83% (n = 400) were submitted to PC. Demands were made mainly by applicants from the government (n = 262; 55%), regarding the adoption of medicines (n = 366; 76%), in which context neoplasms and infectious diseases were the most frequent indications (n = 66; 14% for each). A total of 264 (55%) processes resulted in a final recommendation in favour of introducing the technology. Over the period of 10 years, 196 483 contributions were received in response to PC. The largest volume of contributions was made by patients and their families or representatives (n = 99 082; 50%), females (122 895; 67%), white individuals (129 165; 71%) and individuals between the ages of 25 and 59 years (145 364; 80%). Alteration of the preliminary recommendation occurred in 13% (n = 53) of the PC, with a higher proportion of recommendations being altered from 2017 onwards. Increased participation by patients had a significant impact on the alteration of the preliminary recommendation (odds ratio 3.87, 95% CI 1.33-13.35, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Increased engagement of patients and their families and caregivers in PC was associated with changing the preliminary recommendation of Conitec about the adoption of technologies into the public health system in Brazil.

Parental Perceptions on Use of Artificial Intelligence in Pediatric Acute Care

BACKGROUND

Family engagement is critical in the implementation of artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision support tools, which will play an increasing role in health care in the future. We sought to understand parental perceptions of computer-assisted health care of children in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

We conducted a population-weighted household panel survey of parents with minor children in their home in a large US city to evaluate perceptions of the use of computer programs for the care of children with respiratory illness. We identified demographics associated with discomfort with AI using survey-weighted logistic regression.

RESULTS

Surveys were completed by 1620 parents (panel response rate = 49.7%). Most respondents were comfortable with the use of computer programs to determine the need for antibiotics (77.6%) or bloodwork (76.5%), and to interpret radiographs (77.5%). In multivariable analysis, Black non-Hispanic parents reported greater discomfort with AI relative to White non-Hispanic parents (odds ratio [OR] 1.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-2.70) as did younger parents (18-25 years) relative to parents ≥46 years (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.31-4.67). The greatest perceived benefits of computer programs were finding something a human would miss (64.2%, 95% CI 60.9%-67.4%) and obtaining a more rapid diagnosis (59.6%; 56.2%-62.9%). Areas of greatest concern were diagnostic errors (63.0%, 95% CI 59.6%-66.4%), and recommending incorrect treatment (58.9%, 95% CI 55.5%-62.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Parents were generally receptive to computer-assisted management of children with respiratory illnesses in the ED, though reservations emerged. Black non-Hispanic and younger parents were more likely to express discomfort about AI.

How are health research partnerships assessed? A systematic review of outcomes, impacts, terminology and the use of theories, models and frameworks

BACKGROUND

Accurate, consistent assessment of outcomes and impacts is challenging in the health research partnerships domain. Increased focus on tool quality, including conceptual, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics, could improve the quantification, measurement and reporting partnership outcomes and impacts. This cascading review was undertaken as part of a coordinated, multicentre effort to identify, synthesize and assess a vast body of health research partnership literature.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically assess the outcomes and impacts of health research partnerships, relevant terminology and the type/use of theories, models and frameworks (TMF) arising from studies using partnership assessment tools with known conceptual, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics.

METHODS

Four electronic databases were searched (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus and PsycINFO) from inception to 2 June 2021. We retained studies containing partnership evaluation tools with (1) conceptual foundations (reference to TMF), (2) empirical, quantitative psychometric evidence (evidence of validity and reliability, at minimum) and (3) one or more pragmatic characteristics. Outcomes, impacts, terminology, definitions and TMF type/use were abstracted verbatim from eligible studies using a hybrid (independent abstraction-validation) approach and synthesized using summary statistics (quantitative), inductive thematic analysis and deductive categories (qualitative). Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD).

RESULTS

Application of inclusion criteria yielded 37 eligible studies. Study quality scores were high (mean 80%, standard deviation 0.11%) but revealed needed improvements (i.e. methodological, reporting, user involvement in research design). Only 14 (38%) studies reported 48 partnership outcomes and 55 impacts; most were positive effects (43, 90% and 47, 89%, respectively). Most outcomes were positive personal, functional, structural and contextual effects; most impacts were personal, functional and contextual in nature. Most terms described outcomes (39, 89%), and 30 of 44 outcomes/impacts terms were unique, but few were explicitly defined (9, 20%). Terms were complex and mixed on one or more dimensions (e.g. type, temporality, stage, perspective). Most studies made explicit use of study-related TMF (34, 92%). There were 138 unique TMF sources, and these informed tool construct type/choice and hypothesis testing in almost all cases (36, 97%).

CONCLUSION

This study synthesized partnership outcomes and impacts, deconstructed term complexities and evolved our understanding of TMF use in tool development, testing and refinement studies. Renewed attention to basic concepts is necessary to advance partnership measurement and research innovation in the field. Systematic review protocol registration: PROSPERO protocol registration: CRD42021137932 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=137932 .

An Overview of Stakeholders, Methods, Topics, and Challenges in Participatory Approaches Used in the Development of Medical Devices: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

There is a wide variety of participatory approaches to involve stakeholders in the development of medical devices, but there is no comprehensive overview of these approaches. We therefore studied what participatory approaches are used in the development of medical devices as well as the most important characteristics and challenges of these approaches.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review and searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science for articles published between July 2014 and July 2019. Papers were included if they presented original research featuring any form of stakeholder participation in the development of medical devices. We used The Spectrum of Public Participation to categorise the approach of each paper. Subsequently, we described the characteristics of each approach: the stakeholders involved, data collection methods, and topics addressed. We also identified challenges of the approaches as reported by researchers.

RESULTS

277 papers were included, which could be categorised into three levels of participation: collaboration, involvement, and consultation. Patients and healthcare professionals are frequently engaged in all approaches. The most often used methods are workshops in the collaboration approach papers, and interviews in the involvement and consultation approach papers. Topics addressed in all approaches are: the problem, device requirements, design choices, testing, and procedural aspects of involvement. Reported challenges entail issues related to sampling, analysis, social dynamics, feasibility, and the limited number of topics that can be addressed.

CONCLUSION

Participatory approaches reported in literature can be categorised in three overarching approaches that have comparable methodological characteristics. This suggests that if researchers want to apply a participatory approach it is not necessary to adopt a pre-determined approach, such as 'participatory action research' (PAR). Instead, they can independently determine the degree of participation, stakeholders, methods, topics, and strategies to account for challenges, making sure the participatory approach fits their research question and context.

Engaging Patients and Caregivers in an Early Health Economic Evaluation: Discerning Treatment Value Based on Lived Experience

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, economic evaluations have engaged clinicians and policymakers; however, patients and their caregivers have insight that can ensure that the economic evaluation process appropriately reflects disease consequences and adequately addresses their priorities related to treatment.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to identify patient priorities to inform an early economic evaluation of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy for adults with relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

METHODS

We conducted two online group discussions of four participants each, involving patients with experience of hematological cancer and a caregiver. We used an adapted version of the nominal group technique, a consensus-building discussion approach, to generate focused qualitative data.

RESULTS

Patients and a caregiver acknowledged both the costs directly related to clinical care, such as the out-of-pocket cost of drugs, and the indirect treatment costs, such as the cost of transport, accommodation, and food. The emotional and physical toll of treatment and the influence of treatment on employment and education were additional costs emphasized by participants. Treatment benefits prioritized by participants included the efficacy of treatment, manageable side effects, improved quality of life, accessibility of treatment, and short treatment duration.

CONCLUSIONS

Engaging patients and caregivers in an early economic evaluation could help identify additional costs and benefits of therapies that are not typically recognized in economic evaluations but have the potential to increase the commercial viability of novel therapies. This research also demonstrates how patients and caregivers can be engaged at different levels in the development of early economic evaluation models.

Involvement of Patients and Medical Professionals in the Assessment of Relative Effectiveness: A Need for Closer Cooperation

OBJECTIVES

Involvement of patients and medical professionals in assessment of relative effectiveness (relative effectiveness assessment) contributes to an efficient and effective health technology assessment (HTA) process and supports acceptance and implementation of the outcome. This study aimed to analyze stakeholder involvement in assessing relative effectiveness and how the parties involved value this collaboration.

METHODS

This is a document analysis of all drug assessments completed in 2019 (20) by the public HTA agency of The Netherlands, enriched with semistructured interviews with employees of the HTA agency (18) and representatives of patient (5) and medical (11) associations involved in these assessments. Data were analyzed, coded, and categorized.

RESULTS

In almost half of the assessments, there was no coordination with the medical associations at the start of the relative effectiveness assessment and no patient associations involved in this phase. During the assessment procedure, patient and medical associations were always asked to comment on the draft report. Nevertheless, the strict 5-day deadline that the HTA agency uses as a response period often hampered a proper response and involvement. According to interviewees of the HTA agency, this leads to a great diversity in the substantive quality of their input. Patient and medical associations indicated that the HTA agency relies too much on "paper knowledge," which leads to a (perceived) lack of alignment with clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

The limited involvement results in a lack of coordination and mutual trust. Optimizing involvement of patients and medical professionals in HTA practice requires effort from all parties involved. Procedural adjustments and better coordination, especially at the start of the assessment, would probably improve cooperation.

Fantastic perspectives and where to find them: involving patients and citizens in digital health research

BACKGROUND

Digital contact tracing and exposure notification apps have quickly emerged as a potential solution to achieve timely and effective contact tracing for the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Nonetheless, their actual uptake remains limited. Citizens, including patients, are rarely consulted and included in the design and implementation process. Their contribution supports the acceptability of such apps, by providing upstream evidence on incentives and potential barriers that are most relevant to users. The DIGICIT (DIGITal CITizenship) project relied on patient and citizen partnership in research to better integrate public perspectives on these apps. In this paper, we present the co-construction process that led to the survey instrument used in the DIGICIT project and the interpretation of its results. This approach promotes public participation in research on contact tracing and exposure notification apps, as well as related digital health applications.

OBJECTIVES

This article has three objectives: (1) describe the methodological process to co-construct a questionnaire and interpret the survey results with patients and citizens, (2) assess their experiences regarding this methodology, and (3) propose best practices for their involvement in digital health research.

METHODS

The DIGICIT project was developed in four steps: (1) creation of the advisory committee composed of patients and citizens, (2) co-construction of a questionnaire, (3) interpretation of survey results, and (4) assessment of the experience of committee participants.

RESULTS

Of the 25 applications received for participation in the advisory committee, we selected 12 people based on pre-established diversity criteria. Participants initially generated 84 survey questions in the first co-construction meeting, and eventually selected 36 in the final version. Participants made more than 20 recommendations when interpreting survey results and suggested carrying out focus groups with marginalized populations to increase representativity. They appreciated their inclusion early in the research process, being listened to and respected, the collective intelligence, and the method used for integrating their suggestions. They suggested that the study objectives and roles be better defined, that more time in the brainstorming sessions be allowed, and that discussion outside of meetings be encouraged.

CONCLUSION

Having patients and citizens actively participating in this research constitutes the main methodological strength. They enriched the study from start to finish, and recommended the addition of focus groups to seek the perspective of marginalized groups that are typically under-represented from digital health research. Clear communication of the project objectives, good organization in meetings, and continuous evaluation from participants allow best practices to be achieved for patients' and citizens' involvement in digital health research. Co-construction in research generates critical study design ideas through collective intelligence. This methodology can be used in various clinical contexts and different healthcare settings.

Potential Barriers of Patient Involvement in Health Technology Assessment in Central and Eastern European Countries

Patients' perspectives are important to identify preferences, estimate values and appreciate unmet medical needs in the process of research and development and subsequent assessment of new health technologies. Patient and public involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) is essential in understanding and assessing wider implications of coverage and reimbursement decisions for patients, their relatives, caregivers, and the general population. There are two approaches to incorporating the patients' voice in HTA, preferably used in a mix. In the first one, patients, caregivers and/or their representatives directly participate at discussions in different stages of the HTA process, often at the same table with other stakeholders. Secondly, patient involvement activities can be supported by evidence on patient value and experience collected directly from patients, caregivers and/or their representatives often by patient groups Patient involvement practices, however, are limited in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries without clear methodology or regulatory mechanisms to guide patient involvement in the HTA process. This poses the question of transferability of practices used in other countries, and might call for the development of new CEE-specific guidelines and methods. In this study we aim to map potential barriers of patient involvement in HTA in countries of the CEE region.

Public Perspectives on Exposure Notification Apps: A Patient and Citizen Co-Designed Study

Canada deployed a digital exposure notification app (COVID Alert) as a strategy to support manual contact tracing. Our aims are to (1) assess the use, knowledge, and concerns of the COVID Alert app, (2) identify predictors of app downloads, and (3) develop strategies to promote social acceptability. A 36-item questionnaire was co-designed by 12 citizens and patients partnered with 16 academic researchers and was distributed in the province of Québec, Canada, from May 27 to 28 June 2021. Of 959 respondents, 43% had downloaded the app. Messaging from government sources constituted the largest influence on app download. Infrequent social contacts and perceived app inefficacy were the main reasons not to download the app. Cybersecurity, data confidentiality, loss of privacy, and geolocation were the most frequent concerns. Nearly half of the respondents inaccurately believed that the app used geolocation. Most respondents supported citizen involvement in app development. The identified predictors for app uptake included nine characteristics. In conclusion, this project highlights four key themes on how to promote the social acceptability of such tools: (1) improved communication and explanation of key app characteristics, (2) design features that incentivize adoption, (3) inclusive socio-technical features, and (4) upstream public partnership in development and deployment.

Acceptability of and Willingness to Take Digital Pills by Patients, the Public, and Health Care Professionals: Qualitative Content Analysis of a Large Online Survey

BACKGROUND

Digital pills are pills combined with a sensor, which sends a signal to a patch connected to a smartphone when the pills are ingested. Health care professionals can access patient data from digital pills online via their own interface, thus allowing them to check whether a patient took the drug. Digital pills were developed for the stated goal of improving treatment adherence. The US Food and Drug Administration approved the first digital pills in November 2017, but the manufacturer withdrew its application to the European Medicines Agency in July 2020 because of insufficient evaluation.

OBJECTIVE

As recommended for the evaluation of health technologies, this study assesses the prospective acceptability of and willingness to take digital pills among patients, the public, and health care professionals.

METHODS

Participants were patients who were receiving long-term treatment for a chronic condition, public participants (both groups recruited from a representative sample), and health care professionals. Participants answered 5 open-ended questions regarding the acceptability of digital pills and 1 close-ended question regarding the willingness to take digital pills, which were developed in a preliminary qualitative study. We explored the 5 theoretical dimensions of acceptability by performing an abductive qualitative content analysis of all free-text responses. We assessed data saturation with mathematical models. We fitted a multivariate logistic regression model to identify the sociodemographic and health characteristics associated with the willingness to take digital pills.

RESULTS

Between January 29, 2020, and April 18, 2020, 767 patients, 1238 public participants, and 246 health care professionals provided 11,451 free-text responses. We identified 98 codes related to the acceptability of digital pills: 29 codes on perceived clinical effectiveness (eg, sensor safety cited by 66/2251 participants, 29.5%), 6 on perceived burden (eg, increased doctors' workload, 164/2251 participants, 7.3%), 25 on perceived ethicality (eg, policing, 345/2251 participants, 15.3%), 30 codes on perceived opportunity (eg, exclusively negative perception, 690/2251 participants, 30.7%), and 8 on affective attitude (eg, anger, 541/2251, 24%). Overall, 271/767 (35.3%) patients, 376/1238 (30.4%) public participants, and 39/246 (15.8%) health care professionals reported willingness to take digital pills. This willingness was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1.98, 95% CI 1.62-2.43) and current use of a connected device to record health settings (with a dose-response relationship).

CONCLUSIONS

The prospective acceptability of and willingness to take digital pills were limited by clinical and ethical concerns both at the individual and societal level. Our results suggest that digital pills should not be considered a mere change in the form of drug administration but a complex intervention requiring specific evaluation before extended use in clinical routine practice as well as an ethical and legal framework to ensure safe and ethical collection and use of health data through a patient-centered approach.

Patient-centered health technology assessment: a perspective on engagement in health technology assessment by three patient organizations and a health technology assessment body

Patient engagement in health technology assessment (HTA) has become increasingly important over the past 20 years. Academic and practitioner literature has produced numerous case studies and best practice accounts of patient involvement practices around the world. This text analyzes the experience of being involved in an Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) HTA review in the United States. The analysis comes from the joint perspective of three patient organizations: Lupus and Allied Diseases Association, Inc.; Lupus Foundation of America; and Black Women’s Health Imperative, as well as ICER. We suggest that meaningful, patient-centered engagement, where patient communities are systematically integrated throughout the review, can be a way of returning to the discipline’s roots focusing on technologies’ societal and ethical impact. It is a process that requires robust commitment from all involved but produces assessments relevant to those directly affected by them.

A framework for action to improve patient and public involvement in health technology assessment

Background

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in the Brazilian Health Technology Assessment (HTA) process occurs in response to a legislative mandate for “social participation.” This resulted in some limited patient participation activities, and, therefore, a more systematic approach was needed. The study describes the development of a suggested framework for action to improve PPI in HTA.

Methods

This work used formal methodology to develop a PPI framework based on three-phase mixed-methods research with desktop review of Brazilian PPI activities in HTA; workshop, survey, and interviews with Brazilian stakeholders; and a rapid review of international practices to enact effective patient involvement. Patient partners reviewed the draft framework.

Results

According to patient group representatives, their involvement in the Brazilian HTA process is important but could be improved. Different stakeholders perceived barriers, identified values, and made suggestions for improvement, such as expansion of communication, capacity building, and transparency, to support more meaningful patient involvement. The international practices identified opportunities for earlier, more active, and collaborative PPI during all HTA stages, based on values and principles that are relevant for Brazilian patients and the public. These findings were synthesized to design a framework that defines and systematizes actions to support PPI in Brazil, highlighting the importance of evaluating these strategies.

Conclusions

Since the publication of this framework, some of its suggestions are being implemented in the Brazilian HTA process to improve PPI. We encourage other HTA organizations to consider a systematic and planned approach with regular evaluation when pursuing or strengthening involvement practices.

Public engagement in health technology assessment in Brazil: the case of the public consultation on National Clinical Guidelines for Care in Normal Birth

BACKGROUND

There is a growing body of literature that recognizes the importance of public engagement in health technology assessment. However, there is still uncertainty regarding how the results should be recorded, analyzed, and used by decision makers.

OBJECTIVE

Synthesize the contributions of the Brazilian public (women, health professionals, managers, educational institutions, and companies) about the implementation of the National Clinical Guidelines for Care in Normal Birth from the public consultation carried out in Brazil.

METHOD

IRaMuTeQ software was used to organize and summarize the corpus based on three types of analysis: descriptive statistics; descending hierarchical classification; and specificities analysis. The public consultation was conducted in 2016 by the National Committee for Health Technology Incorporation (CONITEC) in the Brazilian public health system as part of the guideline development process.

RESULTS

The corpus consisted of 303 texts, separated into 1233 text segments, 1081 of which were used, corresponding to retention of 87.67%. Five classes emerged from our analyses: mandatory presence of an obstetrician during labor and delivery in hospital settings; barriers and facilitators for guideline implementation; use of evidence-based practices by health professionals; progression of labor and delivery and women's rights; and mobilization to promote the guideline For each class, the most frequent words and sentences with the highest chi-squared scores were presented. Barriers were associated with lack of financial resources, training and professional motivation, and facilitators with training to change the practices of health professionals. Obstetric nurses emerged as an alternative for supervising normal births as well as the mandatory presence of an obstetrician during childbirth in hospital settings.

CONCLUSION

Our findings summarize the contributions provided by the Brazilian public and shed some light on the barriers and facilitators of clinical guidelines for care in normal birth. These topics are not typically explored by quantitative studies. Including this information in the decision-making process would not only increase public engagement, but provide greater evidence for implementing the clinical guidelines nationwide.

The impact of patient and public involvement in health research versus healthcare: A scoping review of reviews

Many policies promote patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research and healthcare provision. However, research points to uncertainties about its impact. The aim of the article was to compare what types of impact have been reported in reviews of PPI in health research and healthcare, respectively, and to map differences and similarities between the review studies. A review of reviews was undertaken with a search strategy based on the PCC mnemonic for scoping reviews. Four online databases were searched. Studies published in English between the years 2000-2020, using a review-based method and aiming to demonstrate impact of PPI were included, resulting in sixty-one articles. More reviews of PPI impact in healthcare than in health research were found, although the latter included a larger number of empirical studies. Systematic reviews, quality assessment and quantitative studies were less common in health research. Many original studies were from the United Kingdom. In health research, reported impacts most often related to research design and delivery, while in healthcare the most commonly reported impacts were individual health outcomes/clinical outcomes. However, there is still uncertainty about the strength of evidence for PPI, in particular when it comes to collective involvement in healthcare, that is in policymaking and service improvement initiatives at hospitals or the like.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Definitely Maybe: New Governance of Uncertainty and Risk in Patient Group Involvement with UK Guidance on Testing for Lyme Disease

States that claim responsibility for citizens’ healthcare try to deal with knowledge uncertainties while preserving a duty of care. Production of clinical guidelines in disputed medical conditions or where uncertainty is high, is difficult. Patient groups may advocate non-credentialed evidence, contribute to debates and form alliances with established policy actors. In this context, Lyme disease, especially highly contested ‘chronic’ Lyme disease is a good case with which to examine how official governance institutions are managing diagnostic uncertainty and evidence for tests. The healthcare state has been provoked to develop extensive policy for Lyme disease. In the UK, national Health Technology Assessment agency, NICE, began a consultation process in 2016. NICE and other policy actors are moving towards more participatory modes of decision-making. The article analyses NICE’s recently published guidelines and consultation documents; patient groups’ contributions; observations of consultations and of evidence review processes; and recent Department of Health systematic reviews, including patient group participation. We draw on concepts of participatory governance, patient group activism and guideline involvement. We find an increased level of participation by patient groups in recent policy and evidence review processes, and hence legitimation of them as ‘stakeholders’, alongside a strengthened state position on pre-existing diagnostic and testing standards.

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.

Evaluation of the impact of patient input in health technology assessments at NICE

OBJECTIVE

Accounts of patient experiences are increasingly used in health technology assessment (HTA) processes. However, we know little about their impact on the decision-making process. This study aims to assess the level and the type of impact of patient input to highly specialised technologies (HSTs) and interventional procedures (IPs) guidance at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

METHODS

A questionnaire was developed to capture quantitative and qualitative data on the amount and type of impact of patient input into NICE HTAs. It was completed by committee members of the guidance-producing programs after a discussion of the considered topics. The data were analyzed by topic and overall, for each program, and compared across programs.

RESULTS

Patient input was assessed on ten pieces of HST guidance published between January 2015 and November 2019, and on twenty-six pieces of IP guidance scoped between February 2016 and October 2018. A total of 96 responses were collected for HST and 440 for IP. The level of impact of patient input was higher for HST than for IP. For HST, no respondents stated that it had no impact, whereas in IP, 35 percent of respondents did. The most common types of impact found for HST and IP were that it helped interpret the other evidence and that it provided new evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

The impact of patient input is not necessarily explicit in changing recommendations, but it provides context, reassurance, and new information to the committee for the decision-making process in HTAs.

Exploring the theory, barriers and enablers for patient and public involvement across health, social care and patient safety: a systematic review of reviews

BACKGROUND

The emergence of patient and public involvement (PPI) in healthcare in the UK can be traced as far back as the 1970s. More recently, campaigns by harmed patients have led to a renewed focus on strengthening PPI. There is a growing awareness of the benefits of PPI in research as well as a need to address power inequities and a lack of diversity and inclusion. This review was undertaken to look at evidence for theories, barriers and enablers in PPI across health, social care and patient safety that could be used to strengthen PPI and address a perceived knowledge and theory gap with PPI in patient safety.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from inception to August 2018, using both MeSH and free-text terms to identify published empirical literature. Protocols in PROSPERO were also searched to identify any systematic reviews in progress. The extracted information was analysed using a narrative approach, which synthesises data using a descriptive method.

RESULTS

Forty-two reviews were identified and grouped by key outcomes. Twenty-two papers mentioned theory in some form, 31 mentioned equality and diversity (although with no theory mentioned in this area), and only 19 cited equality and diversity as a barrier or enabler. Thirty-four reviews identified barriers and enablers at different organisational levels: personal/individual; attitudes; health professional; roles and expectations; knowledge, information and communication; financing and resourcing; training; general support; recruitment and representation, PPI methods and working with communities and addressing power dynamics.

CONCLUSIONS

The review findings suggest that a commitment to PPI and partnership working is dependent on taking a whole system approach. This needs to consider the complex individual and organisational enablers and constraints to this process and address imbalances of power experienced by different groups. Addressing equality and diversity and use of a theory-driven approach to guide PPI are neglected areas. The long tradition of involvement across health and social care can provide considerable expertise in thinking about ways to strengthen approaches to PPI. This is especially important in patient safety, with a much newer tradition of developing PPI than other areas of healthcare.

Patient involvement in relative effectiveness assessments in the European Network for Health Technology Assessment

Patient involvement in the process of producing health technology assessments has become increasingly important. In the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA), several approaches to patient involvement were explored. The outcome was a document on "Patient Input in Relative Effectiveness Assessments" that is available for access and was published in 2019.The aim of this article is to analyze the experience gained by EUnetHTA in patient involvement for EUnetHTA assessment production, describe and quantify the approaches used, and outline the challenges and avenues for the improvement of current processes.Patients were involved in twenty-three of thirty-six pharmaceutical and other technology EUnetHTA assessments from June 2016 until the end of November 2019. Approaches to patient involvement included using a patient input template, one-on-one conversations, group conversations, scoping meeting with patients, and other approaches.Although it is recognized that patient involvement is important to understand the needs of the target patient population, challenges remain with timely patient involvement. Additionally, further efforts are needed to guide assessment teams on how to implement and enhance the visibility of patient input in assessments.

Use of Patient Preferences in Health Technology Assessment: Perspectives of Canadian, Belgian and German HTA Representatives

OBJECTIVE

Patient preferences can be informative for health technology assessment (HTA) and payer decision making. However, applications may be different per country. The aim of this study therefore was to investigate HTA representatives' opinions on whether and how to incorporate patient preferences in HTA in their respective countries.

METHODS

Three country-specific focus groups were conducted with three to seven HTA representatives from Germany, Belgium, and Canada. A predefined focus group guide was used that covered topics relating to how patient preferences can be used in HTA, namely HTA stage, weight, impact, and quality, as well as a case example of gene therapy. Transcripts were analyzed using NVivo 12 following thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Across all HTA bodies, an interest in the use of patient preferences was observed for scientific advice and value assessments, but not through incorporation in quality-adjusted life-years and multi-criteria decision analysis. HTA representatives found it difficult to determine the weight patient preferences may receive in decision making, but thought it could have an impact on payer decision making if the study is of acceptable quality.

CONCLUSIONS

In the near future it may be impossible to achieve structural integration of patient preferences with other evidence in HTA (e.g., in cost-effectiveness analysis), but HTA bodies are willing to incorporate patient preferences in other HTA sections as supportive evidence. To allow for that use, future work should focus on meeting HTA and payer needs when conducting patient preference studies and on education of HTA and payer representatives regarding these studies.

Role of patients' organizations in Health Technology Assessment: a Habermasian system and lifeworld perspective

Patient and public involvement in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is gaining increased interest among research and policy communities. Patients' organizations represent an important link between individual patients and the health system. Social theories are increasingly being used to explain doctor-patient-system interactions, expanding understanding beyond the mere clinical perspective. In this sense, patient involvement in HTA can also be considered through the Habermas's theory of communicative action. From a Habermasian perspective, HTA as part of the instrumental rationality contributes to an increased efficiency of resource use within the system; however, such rationalization threatens to colonize the lifeworld by making it "increasingly state administered with attenuated possibilities for communicative action as a result of the commercialization and rationalization in terms of immediate returns." Using Habermasian system/lifeworld framework, this paper explores opportunities and obstacles to patient involvement in HTA, whereby trying to understand current and possible roles of patients' organizations as a mediating force between HTA as a function of the system and the lifeworld represented by patients.

Are We Making a Difference? A Qualitative Study of Patient Engagement at the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review: Perspectives of Patient Groups

OBJECTIVES

Despite wide support for patient involvement in health technology assessments (HTA), determining meaningful engagement is complex. This article explores experiences and perceptions among patient groups participating in the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH)'s pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) process.

METHODS

We created a qualitative interview study comprising 22 semi-structured telephone interviews with individuals representing 21 different patient groups registered with the pCODR process. The analysis used a qualitative descriptive approach employing techniques from grounded theory.

RESULTS

Patient groups view the ability to make submissions to the pCODR process as a meaningful activity closely aligned with organizational priorities. Concurrently, they face substantial resource challenges to prepare submissions, including high opportunity costs and difficulty accessing needed literature and finding relevant patients. Although patient groups felt that CADTH is committed to transparency, they expressed considerable uncertainty around the direct impact of their submissions and desired additional avenues for engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests a strong commitment by patient groups to participate in the pCODR process despite uncertainty about how their submissions are used to inform HTA recommendations. Identifying opportunities to provide both financial and nonfinancial resources to patient groups is crucial to encouraging and supporting their meaningful participation in HTA processes.

An overview of critical decision-points in the medical product lifecycle: Where to include patient preference information in the decision-making process?

BACKGROUND

Patient preference (PP) information is not effectively integrated in decision-making throughout the medical product lifecycle (MPLC), despite having the potential to improve patients' healthcare options. A first step requires an understanding of existing processes and decision-points to know how to incorporate PP information in order to improve patient-centric decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

The aims were to: 1) identify the decision-making processes and decision-points throughout the MPLC for industry, regulatory authorities, and reimbursement/HTA, and 2) determine which decision-points can potentially include PP information.

METHODS

A scoping literature review was conducted using five scientific databases. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives from seven European countries and the US, including industry (n = 24), regulatory authorities (n = 23), reimbursement/HTA (n = 23). Finally, validation meetings with key stakeholders (n = 11) were conducted.

RESULTS

Six critical decision-points were identified for industry decision-making, three for regulatory decision-making, and six for reimbursement/HTA decision-making. Stakeholder groups agreed that PP information is not systematically integrated, either as obligatory information or pre-set criteria, but would benefit all the listed decision-points in the future.

CONCLUSION

Currently, PP information is not considered as obligatory information to submit for any of the MPLC decision-points. However, PP information is considered an important component by most stakeholders to inform future decision-making across the MPLC. The integration of PP information into 15 identified decision-points needs continued discussion and collaboration between stakeholders.

Exploration of the visibility of patient input in final recommendation documentation for three health technology assessment bodies

Health technology assessment (HTA) recommendations informed by patient concerns are seen to ensure democracy and legitimacy. We explored how written and oral patient involvement in two HTAs was reported on in publicly available final recommendations and discussion summaries of appraisal committees from three HTA bodies. We aimed to gain insights into how patient input was utilized by appraisal committees to better understand the goals of patient involvement and how these are being achieved. In each of the three HTA bodies, templated submission questionnaires provide a formal process for seeking written patient group input. Additionally, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) selects patient experts to provide a templated submission and attend appraisal committee meetings. For Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), a patient advocate and clinician combined meeting (PACE) discussed the cancer drug, referred to in the final recommendation. The discussion summaries of all appraisal committees contained references to patient involvement. Where two mechanisms for patient involvement were provided, oral input from the expert patients and PACE were more clearly documented than information from written patient group submissions. NICE reports focused on the perspective of the patient expert. The SMC report highlighted feedback from the PACE throughout. We suggest that the lack of clear reporting on the use of patient group input in deliberations and therefore accountability to patient groups limits progress in patient involvement in HTA. Patient groups may therefore not have a clear understanding of what information they can best provide to inform deliberations, and in reporting back to members.

'The problem is small enough, the problem is big enough': a qualitative study of health technology assessment and public policy on drug funding decisions for children

BACKGROUND

Public policy approaches to funding paediatric medicines in developed public health systems remain understudied. Current approaches to HTA present a variety of conceptual, methodological and practical problems in the context of child health. This study explores the technical and sociopolitical determinants of public funding decisions on paediatric drugs, through the analysis of interviews with stakeholders involved in or impacted by HTA for child health technologies at the provincial and national levels in Canada.

METHODS

We undertook in-depth interviews with a purposive sample (n = 22) of stakeholders involved with or affected by drug funding decisions for children at the provincial (Ontario) and national levels in Canada. Grounded theory methods were employed to guide data collection and analysis. Theory on 'technology-as-policy' and the sociopolitics of health technologies served as sensitizing concepts for inductive data coding and analysis. Emergent themes informed the development of conceptual and practical insights on social values and system dynamics related to child HTA, of relevance to public policymaking on the coverage of health technologies for children in Canada.

RESULTS

Participant reflection on the normative and systems dimensions of drug funding for children formed two broad categories: HTA paradigms and sociopolitical context. Our analysis revealed notable differences of context and substance related to child health technology production, evaluation and use. These differences spanned the major phases of HTA (from assembly to assessment to integration) and the surrounding sociopolitical milieu (from markets to governance to politics). Careful analysis of these differences sets in relief a number of substantive and procedural shortcomings of current HTA paradigms in respect of child health. Our findings suggest a need to rethink how HTA is structured and operationalized for child health technologies.

CONCLUSIONS

Current approaches to health technology assessment are not well calibrated to the realities of child health and illness. Our study presents a nuanced and contextually grounded analysis of concepts instrumental to drug funding decisions for children. The insights generated are directly applicable to the Canadian and Ontario contexts, but also yield fundamental knowledge about HTA for children that are germane to drug policy in other health systems.

Social participation in the health technology incorporation process into Unified Health System

OBJECTIVE

To describe the current process of social participation in the incorporation of health technologies in Brazil, within the context of the Unified Health System (SUS).

METHODS

A descriptive study was conducted based on the analysis of official records of the actions of the National Committee for Health Technology Incorporation into Unified Health System and its website, from the beginning of its activities in January 2012 until December 2017.

RESULTS

The findings indicate that, in Brazil, there are legal instruments related to social participation in health, including the health technology assessment (HTA) field. However, its implementation is relatively recent and has been carried out gradually. In addition to the legal instruments (National Health Council representative, public consultation and public hearing forecast), other information and transparency strategies have been shown to be allied to social participation in the incorporation of health technologies. However, activities such as legally provided public hearings have not yet been carried out.

CONCLUSIONS

Several actions to foster social participation were developed over the analyzed period, but they need to be evaluated in order to maintain or improve them. In addition, there is a need for more qualified social participation in the various existing spaces, including those prescribed by law.

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.

Does Consumer Engagement in Health Technology Assessment Enhance or Undermine Equity?

Consumer engagement in decisions about the funding of medicines is often framed as a good in and of itself and as an activity that should be universally encouraged. A common justification for calls for consumer engagement is that it enhances equity. In this paper we systematically critique this assumption. We show that consumer engagement may undermine equity as well as enhance it and show that a simple relationship cannot be assumed but must be justified and demonstrated. In concluding, we present a number of challenges that need to be overcome in order for consumer engagement to contribute to health technology assessment in a morally and politically sound manner.

The Emerging Social Science Literature on Health Technology Assessment: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

Social scientists have paid increasing attention to health technology assessment (HTA). This paper provides an overview of existing social scientific literature on HTA, with a focus on sociology and political science and their subfields.

METHODS

Narrative review of key pieces in English.

RESULTS

Three broad themes recur in the emerging social science literature on HTA: the drivers of the establishment and concrete institutional designs of HTA bodies; the effects of institutionalized HTA on pricing and reimbursement systems and the broader society; and the social and political influences on HTA decisions.

CONCLUSION

Social scientists bring a focus on institutions and social actors involved in HTA, using primarily small-N research designs and qualitative methods. They provide valuable critical perspectives on HTA, at times challenging its otherwise unquestioned assumptions. However, they often leave aside questions important to the HTA practitioner community, including the role of culture and values. Closer collaboration could be beneficial to tackle new relevant questions pertaining to HTA.

What Is Next for Patient Preferences in Health Technology Assessment? A Systematic Review of the Challenges

BACKGROUND

Integrating patient preferences in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is argued to improve uptake, adherence, and patient satisfaction. However, how to elicit and incorporate these preferences in HTA in a systematic and scientifically valid manner is subject to debate.

OBJECTIVE

This article provides a systematic review of the challenges to integrating patient preferences in HTA that have been raised in the literature about patient preferences in HTA.

METHODS

A systematic review of articles published between 2013 and 2017 addressing challenges to the integration of patient preferences in HTA was conducted in 7 databases. All issues with respect to the integration of patient preferences in HTA were extracted and divided into 5 categories: conceptual, normative, procedural, methodological, and practical issues. The issues were ranked according to how often they were mentioned.

RESULTS

Of 2147 retrieved articles, 67 were included in the analysis. Thirty-seven unique research issues were identified. In the majority of the articles, methodological issues were posed (82%), followed by procedural (73%), normative (51%), practical (24%), and conceptual (9%) issues. Frequently posed methodological issues concerned preference heterogeneity and choice of method. Common procedural issues concerned how to evaluate the impact of preference studies and their degree of being evidence based.

CONCLUSIONS

This article provides an overview of issues with respect to the integration of patient preferences in HTA procedures. Most issues were of a methodological or procedural nature; yet, the large number of different issues points to the overall importance of further researching the different aspects concerned with patient preferences in HTA. Through its ranking of how many articles mention particular issues, this article proposes an implicit research agenda.

Public engagement in health technology assessment in Brazil: the case of the Trastuzumab public consultation

BACKGROUND

Public engagement in health technology assessment (HTA) is increasing worldwide. There are several forms of public engagement and it is not always possible to determine which stakeholders participate in the HTA process and how they contribute. Our objective was to investigate which types of social representatives contributed to the public consultation on the incorporation of Trastuzumab for early-stage breast cancer treatment within the public health system in Brazil, held in 2012 by the National Committee for Health Technology Incorporation (CONITEC).

METHODS

A mixed methods approach was used to analyze social representativeness and the composition of the corpus from the public consultation, which consisted of 127 contributions. Three types of analysis were performed using IRaMuTeQ software: classic lexical analysis, descending hierarchical classification and specificities analysis. The contributions were clustered according to the main categories of discourse observed, into four social representation categories: 1) patient representation/advocacy; 2) pharmaceutical industry/advocacy; 3) healthcare professionals; and 4) individual contributions.

RESULTS

Category 1 contained words related to increased survival due to use of the drug and a low score for words pertaining to studies on Trastuzumab. The word "safety" obtained a positive score only in category 2, which was also the only category that exhibited a negative score for the word "risk". Category 3 displayed the lowest scores for "diagnosis" and "safety". The word "efficacy" had a negative score only in category 4.

CONCLUSIONS

Each category exhibited different results for words related to health systems and to key concepts linked to HTA. Our analysis enabled the identification of the most prominent contributions for each category. Despite the promising results obtained, further research is needed to validate this software for use in analyzing public contributions.

[The incorporation of nusinersen by the Brazilian Unified National Health System: critical thoughts on the institutionalization of health technology assessment in Brazil]

In April 2019, a ruling was signed for the incorporation of the drug nusinersen by the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS). Nusinersen is the most expensive drug ever incorporated by the SUS and is used to treat type I 5q spinal muscular atrophy. The incorporation has been described as a milestone in decision-making on new technologies in the SUS, enabled through a risk-sharing agreement. The article discusses the process involved in the incorporation of nusinersen, highlighting the context, timing, and technical issues, in addition to possible consequences for the institutionalization of health technology assessment (HTA) in the SUS. The study used an exploratory method, reviewing public information produced by the Commission for Incorporation of Technologies in the SUS (CONITEC) and searches in government databanks on prices and purchases. A timeline was produced, describing the key points in the process of incorporation. There were two formal requests for the drug's incorporation. The first was submitted by the Division of Science, Technology, and Strategic Inputs (SCTIE) of the Brazilian Ministry of Health and was turned down unanimously in November 2018. This was followed by a petition by the head of the SCTIE to the Attorney General's Office (AGU) to overrule the recommendation by the CONITEC plenary. The AGU recommended a new submission, made by the drug's manufacturing company, which was approved unanimously in March 2019. The was no addition of new evidence or a price reduction to justify the change of decision. No elements were identified in the risk-sharing agreement. This suggests problems of transparency and accountability, as well as risks in the process of institutionalization of HTA that had been underway in the SUS.

A proposal of a new evaluation framework towards implementation of genetic tests

Background

The existing frameworks for the evaluation of genetic and genomic applications clearly address the technical and clinical value of a test, but are less concerned with the way genetic services are delivered and organized. We therefore aimed to develop a comprehensive new framework that includes an assessment of service delivery.

Methods

A new framework was built on the evaluation dimensions identified through a systematic review of the existing frameworks and a Delphi survey of Italian experts in public health genomics.

Results

Our framework has four sections. The first two sections, respectively, guide the evidence collection process for the genetic test (analytic validity; clinical validity; clinical utility; personal utility) and its delivery models (organizational aspects; economic evaluation; ethical, legal and social implications; patient perspective). The third section guides the formulation of the research priorities to be addressed in future research. Finally, the fourth section suggests three criteria to summarize the collected evidence (net benefit, cost-effectiveness, feasibility).

Conclusion

We have successfully developed an evaluation framework for the evaluation of genetic tests that includes an assessment of service delivery. It also introduces some neglected evaluation dimensions such as personal utility and patient perspective.

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.

A taxonomy of impacts on clinical and translational research from community stakeholder engagement

Background

Community engagement is increasingly recognized as a valuable tool in clinical and translational research; however, the impact of engagement is not fully understood. No standard nomenclature yet exists to clearly define how research changes when community stakeholders are engaged across the research spectrum. This severely limits our ability to assess the value of community engagement in research. To address this gap, we developed a taxonomy for characterizing and classifying changes in research due to community engagement.

Methods

Using an iterative process, we (a) identified areas of potential impact associated with community engagement from author experience, (b) categorized these in taxonomic bins based on research stages, (c) conducted semi‐structured interviews with researchers and community stakeholders, (d) validated the codebook in a sample dataset and (e) refined the taxonomy based on the validation. Community stakeholders were involved in every step of the process including as members of the primary study team.

Results

The final taxonomy catalogues changes into eleven domains corresponding to research phases. Each domain includes 2‐4 dimensions depicting concepts within the domain's scope and, within each dimension, 2‐10 elements labelling activities through which community engagement could change research.

Conclusions

Community engagement has great potential to enhance clinical and translational research. This taxonomy provides a common vocabulary and framework for understanding the impact of community engagement and suggests metrics for assessing the value of community engagement in research.

Moving Towards Accountability for Reasonableness - A Systematic Exploration of the Features of Legitimate Healthcare Coverage Decision-Making Processes Using Rare Diseases and Regenerative Therapies as a Case Study

Background: The accountability for reasonableness (A4R) framework defines 4 conditions for legitimate healthcare coverage decision processes: Relevance, Publicity, Appeals, and Enforcement. The aim of this study was to reflect on how the diverse features of decision-making processes can be aligned with A4R conditions to guide decision-making towards legitimacy. Rare disease and regenerative therapies (RDRTs) pose special decision-making challenges and offer therefore a useful case study.

Methods: Features operationalizing each A4R condition as well as three different approaches to address these features (cost-per-QALY-focused and multicriteria-based) were defined and organized into a matrix. Seven experts explored these features during a panel run under the Chatham House Rule and provided general and RDRT-specific recommendations. Responses were analyzed to identify converging and diverging recommendations.

Results: Regarding Relevance, recommendations included supporting deliberation, stakeholder participation and grounding coverage decision criteria in normative and societal objectives. Thirteen of 17 proposed decision criteria were recommended by a majority of panelists. The usefulness of universal cost-effectiveness thresholds to inform allocative efficiency was challenged, particularly in the RDRT context. RDRTs raise specific issues that need to be considered; however, rarity should be viewed in relation to other aspects, such as disease severity and budget impact. Regarding Publicity, panelists recommended transparency about the values underlying a decision and value judgements used in selecting evidence. For Appeals, recommendations included a life-cycle approach with clear provisions for re-evaluations. For Enforcement, external quality reviews of decisions were recommended.

Conclusion: Moving coverage decision-making processes towards enhanced legitimacy in general and in the RDRT context involves designing and refining approaches to support participation and deliberation, enhancing transparency, and allowing explicit consideration of multiple decision criteria that reflect normative and societal objectives.

Ethical Challenges Related to Patient Involvement in Health Technology Assessment

Including information and values from patients in HTA has the potential to improve both the process and outcomes of health technology policy decisions. Accordingly, funding and structural incentives to include patients in HTA activities have increased over the past several years. Unfortunately, these incentives have not yet been accompanied by a corresponding increase in resources, time, or commitment to responsiveness. In this Perspectives piece, we reflect on our collective experiences participating in, conducting, and overseeing patient engagement activities within HTA to highlight the ethical challenges associated with this area of activity. While we remain committed to the idea that patient engagement activities strengthen the findings, relevance, and legitimacy of health technology policy, we are deeply concerned about the potential for these activities to do ethical harm. We use this analysis to call for action to introduce strong protections against ethical violations that may harm patients participating in HTA engagement activities.

Is Co-production Just a Pipe Dream for Applied Health Research Commissioning? An Exploratory Literature Review

Background and Rationale: Internationally, the idea of "co-production' has become more popular in health research because of the promise of partnership between researchers and patients to create research that focuses on patients' needs. Patient and public involvement (PPI) at an early stage in deciding what research should be funded, can improve the quality and impact of research. However, professional power over the process places limits on the public practising their participatory rights for involvement in commissioning research that affects them and can leave members of the public feeling unheard or excluded, particularly within the context of early phase applied health research. Aim: This article explores whether and how the public can be involved in the co-production of research commissioning early on in the process, with a focus on the power relations that pervade basic and early phase translational applied health research. Methods: An exploratory literature review of international peer-reviewed and gray health research literature using structured searches of electronic databases and key search terms. Results: There is very little literature that critically evaluates how PPI is embedded into the early phases of the commissioning process. The field of basic or early translational applied research appear to be particularly challenging. Four themes which emerged from the review are: reasons for PPI in research commissioning; benefits of PPI at strategic levels of research commissioning; contributions of patients and members of the public; improving PPI in research commissioning. Conclusion: Although the public are being consulted at some stages of the research commissioning process, it is evident that the process of determining research priorities and agendas is far from being widely co-produced. Moving PPI from a consultative paternalistic model to a collaborative partnership model should be a priority for commissioners. Significant changes to communication, practices, systems, structures, or cultures that exclude patients and the public from contributing in meaningful ways, are needed to fulfill the potential of co-produced models of research commissioning.

Methods Assessing Sociocultural Aspects of Health Technologies: Results of a Literature Review

Objectives

Social and cultural aspects are rarely assessed in health technology assessments (HTA), despite being part of most HTA definitions. One hypothesis for the reason why they are hardly considered in HTA is that we lack relevant assessment methods. Accordingly, this review aims at providing an overview of methodological approaches to address social and cultural aspects related to health technologies in HTA.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive literature search by searching fourteen databases and a hand-search of two pertinent journals. Additionally, we sent a query to all member agencies of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) asking them for methods they use to assess social and cultural aspects.

Results

A total of 125 publications met our inclusion criteria. We grouped the methodological approaches into checklists for experts, literature reviews, stakeholder participatory approaches, primary data collection methods, and combinations of methodological approaches.

Conclusions

There is a wide variety of methods available for assessing social and cultural aspects of health technologies, some of which have been applied in HTA. The presented overview of the different approaches and their merits can facilitate the assessment of these aspects, and improve the knowledge regarding (potential) success and failure of the implementation of a health technology.

Financial interests of patient organisations contributing to technology assessment at England's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: policy review

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the prevalence of financial interests among patient organisations contributing to health technology assessment at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England and the extent to which NICE's disclosure policy ensures that decision making committees are aware of these interests.

DESIGN

Policy review using accounts, annual reports, and websites of patient organisations; payments declared by pharmaceutical manufacturers on their websites and a centralised database (Disclosure UK); declarations of interests by nominated representatives of patient organisations; and responses from patient organisations.

SETTING

Appraisals of medicines and treatments (technologies) for use in the English and Welsh National Health Service.

PARTICIPANTS

53 patient organisations contributing to 41 NICE technology appraisals published in 2015 and 2016, with 117 separate occasions that a patient organisation contributed to the appraisal of a technology.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prevalence of specific interests (that is, funding from manufacturer(s) of a technology under appraisal or competitor products); proportion of specific interests of which NICE's decision making committees were aware; proportion of unknown specific interests for which disclosure was not required by NICE's policy RESULTS: 38/53 (72%) patient organisations had accepted funding from the manufacturer(s) of a technology or a competitor product in the same year that they had contributed to the appraisal of that technology or the previous year. Specific interests were present on 92/117 (79%) occasions that patient organisations contributed to appraisals in 2015 and 2016. NICE's decision making committees were aware of less than a quarter of specific interests (30/144; 21%). For nearly two thirds of the specific interests not known to committees (71/114; 62%), disclosure by patient organisations was not required by NICE's policy.

CONCLUSIONS

Financial interests are highly prevalent among patient organisations contributing to health technology assessment. NICE should review its disclosure policy to ensure that decision making committees are aware of all relevant interests.

[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.

What's Involved with Wanting to Be Involved? Comparing Expectations for Public Engagement in Health Policy across Research and Care Contexts

Objectives:

We explored public preferences for involvement in health policy decisions, across the contexts of medical research and healthcare.

Approach:

We e-surveyed a sample of Canadians, categorizing respondents by preferences for decision control: (1) more authority; (2) more input; (3) status quo. Two generalized ordered logistic regressions assessed influences on preferences.

Results:

The participation rate was 94%; 1,102 completed responses met quality criteria. The dominant preference was for more input (average = 52.0%), followed by status quo (average = 24.9%) and more authority (average = 21.1%), though preferences for more control were higher in healthcare (57.2%) than medical research (46.8%). Preferences for greater control were associated with constructs related to reduced trust in healthcare systems.

Conclusion:

The public expects health policy to account for public views, but not base decisions primarily on these views. More involvement was expected in healthcare than medical research policy. As opportunities for public involvement in health research grow, we anticipate increased desired involvement.