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

Using best-worst scaling to inform policy decisions in Africa: a literature review

BACKGROUND

Stakeholder engagement in policy decision-making is critical to inform required trade-offs, especially in low-and-middle income settings, such as many African countries. Discrete-choice experiments are now commonly used to engage stakeholders in policy decisions, but other methods such as best-worst scaling (BWS), a theory-driven prioritization technique, could be equally important. We sought to document and explore applications of BWS to assess stakeholder priorities in the African context to bring attention to BWS as a method and to assess how and why it is being used to inform policy.

METHODS

We conducted a literature review of published applications of BWS for prioritization in Africa.

RESULTS

Our study identified 35 studies, with the majority published in the past four years. BWS has most commonly been used in agriculture (43%) and health (34%), although its broad applicability is demonstrated through use in fields influencing social and economic determinants of health, including business, environment, and transportation. Published studies from eastern, western, southern, and northern Africa include a broad range of sample sizes, design choices, and analytical approaches. Most studies are of high quality and high policy relevance. Several studies cited benefits of using BWS, with many of those citing potential limitations rather than observed limitations in their study.

CONCLUSIONS

Growing use of the method across the African continent demonstrates its feasibility and utility, recommending it for consideration among researchers, program implementers, policy makers, and funders when conducting preference research to influence policy and improve health systems.

REGISTRATION

The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020209745).

Assessing medical devices: a qualitative study from the validate perspective

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to explore procedures and methods used at health technology assessment (HTA) agencies for assessing medical devices and the underlying views of HTA practitioners about appropriate methodology to identify challenges in adopting new methodologies for assessing devices. We focused on the role of normative commitments of HTA practitioners in the adoption of new methods.

METHODS

An online survey, including questions on procedures, scoping, and assessments of medical devices, was sent to members of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. Interviews were conducted with survey respondents and HTA practitioners involved in assessments of transcatheter aortic valve implantation to gain an in-depth understanding of choices made and views about assessing medical devices. Survey and interview questions were inspired by the "values in doing assessments of health technologies" approach towards HTA, which states that HTA addresses value-laden questions and information.

RESULTS

The current practice of assessing medical devices at HTA agencies is predominantly based on procedures, methods, and epistemological principles developed for assessments of drugs. Both practical factors (available time, demands of decision-makers, existing legal frameworks, and HTA guidelines), as well as commitments of HTA practitioners to principles of evidence-based medicine, make the adoption of a new methodology difficult.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a broad recognition that assessments of medical devices may need changes in HTA methodology. In order to realize this, the HTA community may require both a discussion on the role, responsibility, and goals of HTA, and resulting changes in institutional context to adopt new methodologies.

The Full Value of Vaccine Assessments Concept-Current Opportunities and Recommendations

For vaccine development and adoption decisions, the 'Full Value of Vaccine Assessment' (FVVA) framework has been proposed by the WHO to expand the range of evidence available to support the prioritization of candidate vaccines for investment and eventual uptake by low- and middle-income countries. Recent applications of the FVVA framework have already shown benefits. Building on the success of these applications, we see important new opportunities to maximize the future utility of FVVAs to country and global stakeholders and provide a proof-of-concept for analyses in other areas of disease control and prevention. These opportunities include the following: (1) FVVA producers should aim to create evidence that explicitly meets the needs of multiple key FVVA consumers, (2) the WHO and other key stakeholders should develop standardized methodologies for FVVAs, as well as guidance for how different stakeholders can explicitly reflect their values within the FVVA framework, and (3) the WHO should convene experts to further develop and prioritize the research agenda for outcomes and benefits relevant to the FVVA and elucidate methodological approaches and opportunities for standardization not only for less well-established benefits, but also for any relevant research gaps. We encourage FVVA stakeholders to engage with these opportunities.

Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to Prioritize Real-World Evidence Studies for Health Technology Management: Outcomes and Lessons Learned by the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a value assessment tool designed to help support complex decision-making by incorporating multiple factors and perspectives in a transparent, structured approach. We developed an MCDA rating tool, consisting of seven criteria evaluating the importance and feasibility of conducting potential real-world evidence (RWE) studies aimed at addressing uncertainties stemming from initial cancer drug funding recommendations. In collaboration with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health's Provincial Advisory Group, a validation exercise was conducted to further evaluate the application of the rating tool using RWE proposals varying in complexity. Through this exercise, we aimed to gain insight into consensus building and deliberation processes and to identify efficiencies in the application of the rating tool. An experienced facilitator led a multidisciplinary committee, consisting of 11 Canadian experts, through consensus building, deliberation, and prioritization. A total of nine RWE proposals were evaluated and prioritized as low (n = 4), medium (n = 3), or high (n = 2) priority. Through an iterative process, efficiencies and recommendations to improve the rating tool and associated procedures were identified. The refined MCDA rating tool can help decision-makers prioritize important and feasible RWE studies for research and can enable the use of RWE for the life-cycle evaluation of cancer drugs.

We need to talk about values: a proposed framework for the articulation of normative reasoning in health technology assessment

It is acknowledged that health technology assessment (HTA) is an inherently value-based activity that makes use of normative reasoning alongside empirical evidence. But the language used to conceptualise and articulate HTA's normative aspects is demonstrably unnuanced, imprecise, and inconsistently employed, undermining transparency and preventing proper scrutiny of the rationales on which decisions are based. This paper - developed through a cross-disciplinary collaboration of 24 researchers with expertise in healthcare priority-setting - seeks to address this problem by offering a clear definition of key terms and distinguishing between the types of normative commitment invoked during HTA, thus providing a novel conceptual framework for the articulation of reasoning. Through application to a hypothetical case, it is illustrated how this framework can operate as a practical tool through which HTA practitioners and policymakers can enhance the transparency and coherence of their decision-making, while enabling others to hold them more easily to account. The framework is offered as a starting point for further discussion amongst those with a desire to enhance the legitimacy and fairness of HTA by facilitating practical public reasoning, in which decisions are made on behalf of the public, in public view, through a chain of reasoning that withstands ethical scrutiny.

Moving towards social inclusion: Engaging rural voices in priority setting for health

BACKGROUND

Achieving universal health coverage (UHC) in the context of limited resources will require prioritising the most vulnerable and ensuring health policies and services are responsive to their needs. One way of addressing this is through the engagement of marginalised voices in the priority setting process. Public engagement approaches that enable group level deliberation as well as individual level preference capturing might be valuable in this regard, but there are limited examples of their practical application, and gaps in understanding their outcomes, especially with rural populations.

OBJECTIVE

To address this gap, we implemented a modified priority setting tool (Choosing All Together-CHAT) that enables individuals and groups to make trade-offs to demonstrate the type of health services packages that may be acceptable to a rural population. The paper presents the findings from the individual choices as compared to the group choices, as well as the differences among the individual choices using this tool.

METHODS

Participants worked in groups and as individuals to allocate stickers representing the available budget to different health topics and interventions using the CHAT tool. The allocations were recorded at each stage of the study. We calculated the median and interquartile range across study participants for the topic totals. To examine differences in individual choices, we performed Wilcoxon rank sum tests.

RESULTS

The results show that individual interests were mostly aligned with societal ones, and there were no statistically significant differences between the individual and group choices. However, there were some statistically significant differences between individual priorities based on demographic characteristics like age.

DISCUSSION

The study demonstrates that giving individuals greater control and agency in designing health services packages can increase their participation in the priority setting process, align individual and community priorities, and potentially enhance the legitimacy and acceptability of priority setting. Methods that enable group level deliberation and individual level priority setting may be necessary to reconcile plurality. The paper also highlights the importance of capturing the details of public engagement processes and transparently reporting on these details to ensure valuable outcomes.

PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The facilitator of the CHAT groups was a member from the community and underwent training from the research team. The fieldworkers were also from the community and were trained and paid to capture the data. The participants were all members of the rural community- the study represents their priorities.

Future Role of Health Technology Assessment for Genomic Medicine in Oncology: A Canadian Laboratory Perspective

Genome-based testing in oncology is a rapidly expanding area of health care that is the basis of the emerging area of precision medicine. The efficient and considered adoption of novel genomic medicine testing is hampered in Canada by the fragmented nature of health care oversight as well as by lack of clear and transparent processes to support rapid evaluation, assessment, and implementation of genomic tests. This article provides an overview of some key barriers and proposes approaches to addressing these challenges as a potential pathway to developing a national approach to genomic medicine in oncology.

Translating Precision Health for Pediatrics: A Scoping Review

Precision health aims to personalize treatment and prevention strategies based on individual genetic differences. While it has significantly improved healthcare for specific patient groups, broader translation faces challenges with evidence development, evidence appraisal, and implementation. These challenges are compounded in child health as existing methods fail to incorporate the physiology and socio-biology unique to childhood. This scoping review synthesizes the existing literature on evidence development, appraisal, prioritization, and implementation of precision child health. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase were searched. The included articles were related to pediatrics, precision health, and the translational pathway. Articles were excluded if they were too narrow in scope. In total, 74 articles identified challenges and solutions for putting pediatric precision health interventions into practice. The literature reinforced the unique attributes of children and their implications for study design and identified major themes for the value assessment of precision health interventions for children, including clinical benefit, cost-effectiveness, stakeholder values and preferences, and ethics and equity. Tackling these identified challenges will require developing international data networks and guidelines, re-thinking methods for value assessment, and broadening stakeholder support for the effective implementation of precision health within healthcare organizations. This research was funded by the SickKids Precision Child Health Catalyst Grant.

Civil society and medical product access in Africa: Lessons from COVID-19

Understanding health as a human right creates a legal obligation on countries to ensure access to timely, acceptable, and affordable health care. We highlight the importance of a meaningful role for civil society in improving access to well-regulated quality medical products in Africa; to support and be part of a regional social contract approach following the access issues that have been particularly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic. We argue that African communities have a clear participatory role as important stakeholders in the regulatory lifecycle. Solidarity is important for a cohesive approach as formal government healthcare infrastructure may be minimal for some countries, with little training of communities available for disease management and insufficient money to fund people to organise and deliver health care. Some of the issues for civil society engagement with multi-stakeholders, and possible mitigating strategies, are tabulated to initiate discussion on facilitators and concerns of governments and other stakeholders for meaningful participation by patients, communities and civil society within a regional regulatory lifecycle approach. Solidarity is called for to address issues of equity, ethics and morality, stigmatisation and mutual empowerment - to sustainably support the region and national governments to develop greater self-sufficiency throughout the regulatory lifecycle. By creating a participatory space, patients, communities and civil society can be invited in with clear missions and supported by well-defined guidance to create a true sense of solidarity and social cohesion. Strong leadership coupled with the political will to share responsibilities in all aspects of this work is key.

How can health technology assessment support our response to public health emergencies?

Public health emergencies (PHEs), such as the COVID-19 crisis, are threats to global health and public order. We recommend that countries bolster their PHE responses by investing in health technology assessment (HTA), defined as a systematic process of gathering pertinent information on and evaluating health technologies from a medical, economic, social and ethical standpoint. We present examples of how HTA organizations in low- and middle-income countries have adapted to supporting PHE-related decisions during COVID-19 and describe the ways HTA can help the response to a PHE. In turn, we advocate for HTA capacity to be further developed globally and for increased institutional acceptance of these methods as a building block for preparedness and response to future PHEs. Finally, the long-term potential of HTA in strengthening health systems and embedding confidence and transparency into scientific policy should be recognized.

Three Approaches to Improve a Practical Guide on Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide"

As countries around the world seek to deliver universal health coverage, they must prioritize which services to pay for with public funds, to whom, and at what cost. Countries are increasingly using health technology assessment (HTA) to identify which interventions provide the best value for money and merit inclusion in their health benefit packages (HBPs)-the explicit lists of health services provided using public funds. Oortwijn et al understand the importance of providing practical guidance on the foundation of HBP design, and their article, "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide," provides recommendations for HTA bodies to improve the legitimacy of their decision-making by incorporating four elements in their HBP procedures: stakeholder involvement, evidence-informed evaluation, transparency, and appeal. This article proposes three approaches to enhance the value of the guide: moving from structure to compliance and performance, prioritizing key issues of legitimacy within HBP processes, and acknowledging potential the costs and risks associated with the use of this framework.

Challenges and Opportunities for Deliberative Processes for Healthcare Decision-Making Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide"

The second edition of the practical guide for evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) is an important addition to the growing guidance on deliberative processes supporting priority setting in healthcare. While the practical guide draws on an extensive amount of information collected on established and developing processes within a range of countries, EDPs present health technology assessment (HTA) bodies with several challenges. (1) Basing recommendations on current processes that have not been well-evaluated and that have changed over time may lead to weaker legitimacy than desired. (2) The requirement for social learning among stakeholders may require increased resourcing and blur the boundary between moral deliberation and political negotiation. (3) Robust evaluation should be based on an explicit theory of change, and some process outcomes may be poor guides to overall improvement of EDPs. This comment clarifies and reinforces the recommendations provided in the practical guide.