Decision making in NICE single technological appraisals: How does NICE incorporate patient perspectives?

Understanding the Normativity of Health Technology Assessment: Ontological, Moral, and Epistemological Commitments

The inherent normativity of HTA can be conceptualized as a result of normative commitments, a concept that we further specify to encompass moral, epistemological and ontological commitments at play in the practice of HTA. Based on examples from literature, and an analysis of the example of assessing Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT), we will show that inevitable normative decisions in conducting an assessment commits the HTA practitioner to moral (regarding what makes a health technology desirable), ontological (regarding which effects of health technology are conceivable), and epistemological (regarding how to obtain reliable information about health technology) norms. This highlights and supports the need for integrating normative analysis and stakeholder participation, providing guidance to HTA practitioners when making normative choices. This will foster a shared understanding between those who conduct, use, or are impacted by assessments regarding what are conceivable and desirable outcomes of using health technology, and how to collect reliable information to assess whether these outcomes are (going to be) realized. It also provides more insight into the implications of different normative choices.

Development of a disease-specific health utility score for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from a discrete choice experiment patient preference study

OBJECTIVES

While patient input to health technology assessment (HTA) has traditionally been of a qualitative nature, there is increasing interest to integrate quantitative evidence from patient preference studies into HTA decision making. Preference data can be used to generate disease-specific health utility data. We generated a health utility score for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and consider its use within HTAs.

METHODS

Based on qualitative research, six symptoms were identified as important to COPD patients: shortness of breath, exacerbations, chronic cough, mucus secretion, sleep disturbance, and urinary incontinence. We employed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and the random parameter logistic regression technique to estimate utility scores for all COPD health states. The relationship between patients' COPD health utility scores, self-perceived COPD severity, and EQ-5D-3L utility scores was analyzed, with data stratified according to disease severity and comorbidity subgroups.

RESULTS

The COPD health utility score had face validity, with utility scores negatively correlated with patients' self-perceived COPD severity. The correlation between the COPD health utility scores and EQ-5D-3L values was only moderate. While patient EQ-5D-3L scores were impacted by comorbidities, the COPD health utility score was less impacted by comorbid conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Our COPD utility measure, derived from a DCE, provides a patient-centered health utility score and is more sensitive to the COPD health of the individual and less sensitive to other comorbidities. This disease-specific instrument should be considered alongside generic health-related quality of life instruments when valuing new COPD therapies in submissions to licensing and reimbursement agencies.

An empirical ethics study of the coherence of NICE technology appraisal policy and its implications for moral justification

BACKGROUND

As the UK's main healthcare priority-setter, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has good reason to want to demonstrate that its decisions are morally justified. In doing so, it has tended to rely on the moral plausibility of its principle of cost-effectiveness and the assertion that it has adopted a fair procedure. But neither approach provides wholly satisfactory grounds for morally defending NICE's decisions. In this study we adopt a complementary approach, based on the proposition that a priority-setter's claim to moral justification can be assessed, in part, based on the coherence of its approach and that the reliability of any such claim is undermined by the presence of dissonance within its moral system. This study is the first to empirically assess the coherence of NICE's formal approach and in doing so to generate evidence-based conclusions about the extent to which this approach is morally justified.

METHODS

The study is grounded in the theory, methods and standards of empirical bioethics. Twenty NICE policy documents were coded to identify and classify the normative commitments contained within NICE technology appraisal policy as of 31 December 2021. Coherence was systematically assessed by attempting to bring these commitments into narrow reflective equilibrium (NRE) and by identifying sources of dissonance.

FINDINGS

Much of NICE policy rests on coherent values that provide a strong foundation for morally justified decision-making. However, NICE's formal approach also contains several instances of dissonance which undermine coherence and prevent NRE from being fully established. Dissonance arises primarily from four sources: i) NICE's specification of the principle of cost-effectiveness; ii) its approach to prioritising the needs of particular groups; iii) its conception of reasonableness in the context of uncertainty, and iv) its concern for innovation as an independent value.

CONCLUSION

At the time of analysis, the level of coherence across NICE policy provides reason to question the extent to which its formal approach to technology appraisal is morally justified. Some thoughts are offered on why, given these findings, NICE has been able to maintain its legitimacy as a healthcare priority-setter and on what could be done to enhance coherence.

Would shared decision-making be useful in breast cancer screening programmes? A qualitative study using focus group discussions to gather evidence from French women with different socioeconomic backgrounds

BACKGROUND

To inform the development of an online tool to be potentially used in shared decision-making about breast cancer screening, French women were questioned about participation in breast cancer screening, the health professional's role, and their perceptions of the proposed tool.

METHODS

We organised focus group discussions with 55 French women. Two different strategies were used to recruit women from high and low socioeconomic backgrounds. We applied both inductive and deductive approaches to conduct a thematic analysis of the discussions. We analysed the responses by using the main determinants from different health behaviour models and compared the two groups.

RESULTS

Independently of socioeconomic status, the most important determinant for a woman's participation in breast cancer screening was the perceived severity of breast cancer and the perceived benefits of its early detection by screening. Cues to action reported by both groups were invitation letters; recommendations by health professionals, or group/community activities and public events were reported by women from high and low socioeconomic backgrounds, respectively. Among other positive determinants, women from high socioeconomic backgrounds reported making informed decisions and receiving peer support whereas women from low socioeconomic backgrounds reported community empowerment through group/community events. Fear of cancer was reported as a barrier in both groups. Among other barriers, language issues were reported only by women from low socioeconomic backgrounds; women from high socioeconomic backgrounds reported breast cancer screening-related risks other than overdiagnosis and/or overtreatment. Barriers to accessing the online tool to be developed were mainly reported by women from high socioeconomic backgrounds.

CONCLUSION

Limitations in implementing shared decision-making for women from low socioeconomic backgrounds were highlighted. An online tool that is suitable for all women, regardless of socioeconomic status, would provide "on-demand" reliable and tailored information about breast cancer screening and improve access to health professionals and social exchanges.

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.

Making recommendations to subsidize new health technologies in Australia: A qualitative study of decision-makers' perspectives on committee processes

OBJECTIVES

To explore experiences of, and perspectives on, health technology assessment (HTA) processes used to produce recommendations about subsidizing new medicines, and medical technologies in Australia, from the perspectives of those experienced in these processes.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with a diverse group of 18 informants currently or previously members of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) or the Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). Participants were interviewed September 2021-February 2022. Transcripts were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

3 major themes were identified: contrasting technical and decision-making stages, resisting reductionist approaches, and navigating decision-making trade-offs. Participants discussed the complexities of the evaluative HTA process, especially when considering uncertainty in the evidence. As part of the current process, a deliberative decision-making stage was considered essential, allowing a flexible approach to decision making to consider factors beyond strength and quality of quantifiable data in the technical evaluation. Participants acknowledged these less-quantifiable factors were sometimes considered implicitly or were difficult to describe and this, paired with commercial in confidence requirements, presented challenges with respect to the desire to increase transparency.

CONCLUSION (S)

As HTA processes for new medicines and medical technologies in Australia continue to be reviewed, the balance between retaining flexibility during deliberation, confidentiality for sponsors and the public's desire for greater transparency may be a fruitful area for continuing research.

Patient engagement in the development and delivery of healthcare services: a systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patient engagement (PE) is required to improve future healthcare services. PE in the development and delivery of healthcare services is likely to be complex but is scarcely described.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this scoping review was to summarise primary studies on mesolevel PE regarding structure, process and outcomes. More specifically, the aim was to explore barriers and facilitators to successful PE, how persons are engaged in the process and summarise reported consequences.

METHOD

A systematic scoping review was conducted, searching the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane and PsycINFO databases. Primary studies, published between 7 July 2005 and 4 October 2022, were considered for inclusion. Two reviewers extracted data about PE (eg, attributes of PE settings, facilitators and barriers, and outcomes to PE) and the first author coded the extracted data into structural, processual and outcome themes.

RESULTS

Of 8588 identified records, 37 studies were eligible. Most of the included studies were conducted in Europe (n=19; 51%) and North America (n=13; 35%). Structures that ensure sufficient stakeholder representativeness and PE knowledge through education may facilitate the PE process further, regardless of the environmental setting. Interpersonal relationships with uneven power dynamics were reported as noteworthy processual barriers to meaningful PE, while clearly described roles and tasks were reported as important facilitators. In contrast to hard outcomes with operationalised PE effects, the most noteworthy outcomes of PE were reported as soft processual consequences such as patient representatives improving their self-esteem and feeling valued.

CONCLUSIONS

Unfortunately, there is a dearth of studies exploring hard and operationalised PE outcomes on healthcare services and patients receiving healthcare. The PE process may be facilitated by dedicated finances to PE education and by ensuring sufficient stakeholder representativeness.

Consumers' and health providers' views and perceptions of partnering to improve health services design, delivery and evaluation: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Partnering with consumers in the planning, delivery and evaluation of health services is an essential component of person-centred care. There are many ways to partner with consumers to improve health services, including formal group partnerships (such as committees, boards or steering groups). However, consumers' and health providers' views and experiences of formal group partnerships remain unclear. In this qualitative evidence synthesis (QES), we focus specifically on formal group partnerships where health providers and consumers share decision-making about planning, delivering and/or evaluating health services. Formal group partnerships were selected because they are widely used throughout the world to improve person-centred care. For the purposes of this QES, the term 'consumer' refers to a person who is a patient, carer or community member who brings their perspective to health service partnerships. 'Health provider' refers to a person with a health policy, management, administrative or clinical role who participates in formal partnerships in an advisory or representative capacity. This QES was co-produced with a Stakeholder Panel of consumers and health providers. The QES was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane intervention review entitled Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation.

OBJECTIVES

1. To synthesise the views and experiences of consumers and health providers of formal partnership approaches that aimed to improve planning, delivery or evaluation of health services. 2. To identify best practice principles for formal partnership approaches in health services by understanding consumers' and health providers' views and experiences.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL for studies published between January 2000 and October 2018. We also searched grey literature sources including websites of relevant research and policy organisations involved in promoting person-centred care.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included qualitative studies that explored consumers' and health providers' perceptions and experiences of partnering in formal group formats to improve the planning, delivery or evaluation of health services.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Following completion of abstract and full-text screening, we used purposive sampling to select a sample of eligible studies that covered a range of pre-defined criteria, including rich data, range of countries and country income level, settings, participants, and types of partnership activities. A Framework Synthesis approach was used to synthesise the findings of the sample. We appraised the quality of each study using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skill Program) tool. We assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach. The Stakeholder Panel was involved in each stage of the review from development of the protocol to development of the best practice principles.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 182 studies that were eligible for inclusion. From this group, we selected 33 studies to include in the final synthesis. These studies came from a wide range of countries including 28 from high-income countries and five from low- or middle-income countries (LMICs). Each of the studies included the experiences and views of consumers and/or health providers of partnering in formal group formats. The results were divided into the following categories. Contextual factors influencing partnerships: government policy, policy implementation processes and funding, as well as the organisational context of the health service, could facilitate or impede partnering (moderate level of confidence). Consumer recruitment: consumer recruitment occurred in different ways and consumers managed the recruitment process in a minority of studies only (high level of confidence). Recruiting a range of consumers who were reflective of the clinic's demographic population was considered desirable, particularly by health providers (high level of confidence). Some health providers perceived that individual consumers' experiences were not generalisable to the broader population whereas consumers perceived it could be problematic to aim to represent a broad range of community views (high level of confidence). Partnership dynamics and processes: positive interpersonal dynamics between health providers and consumers facilitated partnerships (high level of confidence). However, formal meeting formats and lack of clarity about the consumer role could constrain consumers' involvement (high level of confidence). Health providers' professional status, technical knowledge and use of jargon were intimidating for some consumers (high level of confidence) and consumers could feel their experiential knowledge was not valued (moderate level of confidence). Consumers could also become frustrated when health providers dominated the meeting agenda (moderate level of confidence) and when they experienced token involvement, such as a lack of decision-making power (high level of confidence) Perceived impacts on partnership participants: partnering could affect health provider and consumer participants in both positive and negative ways (high level of confidence). Perceived impacts on health service planning, delivery and evaluation: partnering was perceived to improve the person-centredness of health service culture (high level of confidence), improve the built environment of the health service (high level of confidence), improve health service design and delivery e.g. facilitate 'out of hours' services or treatment closer to home (high level of confidence), enhance community ownership of health services, particularly in LMICs (moderate level of confidence), and improve consumer involvement in strategic decision-making, under certain conditions (moderate level of confidence). There was limited evidence suggesting partnering may improve health service evaluation (very low level of confidence). Best practice principles for formal partnering to promote person-centred care were developed from these findings. The principles were developed collaboratively with the Stakeholder Panel and included leadership and health service culture; diversity; equity; mutual respect; shared vision and regular communication; shared agendas and decision-making; influence and sustainability.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Successful formal group partnerships with consumers require health providers to continually reflect and address power imbalances that may constrain consumers' participation. Such imbalances may be particularly acute in recruitment procedures, meeting structure and content and decision-making processes. Formal group partnerships were perceived to improve the physical environment of health services, the person-centredness of health service culture and health service design and delivery. Implementing the best practice principles may help to address power imbalances, strengthen formal partnering, improve the experiences of consumers and health providers and positively affect partnership outcomes.

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.

Analysis of consumer comments into PBAC decision-making (2014-9)

OBJECTIVES

The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) is an independent expert body that recommends new technologies for listing on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Its decision-making process is evidence-based and considers a technology's clinical effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness compared with other technologies. Since 2014, the PBAC has formally taken into account input from those impacted by the technology via an online consumer comments portal and has also reported on received comments in the Public Summary Documents (PSDs). Comments are welcomed from those whose health the technology is trying to improve, as well as carers, clinicians, and organizations. Our objective was to analyze and review consumer comments in the PBAC's decision-making process.

METHODS

We extracted information about consumer comments from the PBAC PSDs from 2014-9. We conducted simple descriptive analyses.

RESULTS

Our findings reveal that two thirds of all submissions did not receive a single consumer comment. Of the remaining third, eight submissions (less than 1 percent) had a substantial number of consumer comments (>500). For these technologies, multiple submissions were required before a recommendation was issued. Submissions spanned multiple therapeutic areas, the therapeutic areas with the most consumer comments were genetic disease, pediatrics, and oncology.

CONCLUSIONS

In the light of our review, we have identified limitations to the current consumer comments process, and after an examination of the processes of other comparable health technology assessment agencies, we have identified a number of improvements that could be made to the PBAC's process to increase consumer engagement.

Can We Afford to Exclude Patients Throughout Health Technology Assessment?

Health technology assessment (HTA) is intended to determine the value of health technologies and, once a technology is recommended for funding, bridge clinical research and practice. Understanding the values and beliefs expressed by patients and health professionals can help guide this knowledge transfer and work toward managing the expectations of end users. We gathered patient and patient group leader experiences to gain insights into the roles that patients and patient advocacy groups are playing. We argue that through partnerships and co-creation between HTA professionals, researchers and patient advocates we can strengthen the HTA process and better align with service delivery where person-centered care and shared decision making are key elements. Patient experiences and knowledge are important to the democratization of evidence and the legitimacy of HTAs. Patient preference studies are used to balance benefits with potential harms of technologies, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can measure what matters to patients over time. A change in culture in HTA bodies is occurring and with further transformative thinking patients can be involved in every step of the HTA process. Patients have a right to be involved in HTAs, with patients' values central to HTA deliberations on a technology and where patients can provide valuable insights to inform HTA decision-making; and in ensuring that HTA methodologies evolve. By evaluating the implementation of HTA recommendations we can determine how HTA benefits patients and their communities. Our shared commitment can positively effect the common good and provide benefits to individual patients and their communities.

Patient participation in priority setting: Co-existing participant roles

Reflecting a 'participatory turn' in healthcare, a variety of activities have been adopted in many countries to harness the views of patients, relatives and service users. While celebrated as a way of empowering patients and increasing the legitimacy of decisions that impact on patient care, critics contend that practices of patient participation often fall short of the ideals they purport to implement. In this article, we investigate how patients' participation in medical priority setting corresponds with the regulative ideals of deliberation and how the practices of participation influence the ability of patients to make their voices heard. Building on document analysis and semi-structured interviews with 12 patient representatives and four scientific officers in the Danish Medicines Council, the analysis demonstrates that conflicting notions of valid knowledge constituted a main challenge for patient participation. The study contributes to the literature on patient participation through a conceptualization of four co-existing participant roles: 1) compliant keepers of experiential knowledge, 2) lay experts investing in evidence production, 3) knowledge translators engaged in alliance building, and 4) demonstrators promoting public contestation. We suggest that a main challenge for PP initiatives is to take into account this variation in patients' engagement.

Decision-making in the midst of uncertainty: appraising expensive medicines in England

Decisions need to be made about which services or technologies should be prioritized for provision in the NHS in England .The analysis focuses specifically on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and on how they appraise expensive medicines. This analysis takes a sociological perspective on decision-making in relation to uncertainty and how uncertainties are managed, drawing on evidence from a scoping study and an ethnographic study. Uncertainties were central to these rationing decisions. Three types of layers of uncertainty -epistemic, procedural and interpersonal - were shown to be salient. Another form of uncertainty was associated with the complexity of the science and that included the level of technicality of the information provided. The analysis highlighted the salience of uncertainties associated with interpersonal relations and the relations between the committees and the drug industry, clinical and patient experts. A key element in these relationships was trust. Decision makers adopted a mixture of formal and informal, collective and individual strategies in making decisions and a need to exercise pragmatism within a more formal institutional framework. The paper concludes by considering more recent policy developments in relation to appraising expensive medicines.

Necessity under construction - societal weighing rationality in the appraisal of health care technologies

Health care coverage decisions may employ many different considerations, which are brought together across two phases. The assessment phase examines the available scientific evidence, such as the cost-effectiveness, of the technology. The appraisal then contextualises this evidence to arrive at an (advised) coverage decision, but little is known about how this is done.In the Netherlands, the appraisal is set up to achieve a societal weighing and is the primary place where need- and solidarity-related ('necessity') argumentations are used. To elucidate how the Dutch appraisal committee 'constructs necessity', we analysed observations and recordings of two appraisal committee meetings at the National Health Care Institute, the corresponding documents (five), and interviews with committee members and policy makers (13 interviewees in 12 interviews), with attention to specific necessity argumentations.The Dutch appraisal committee constructs necessity in four phases: (1) allowing explicit criteria to steer the process; (2) allowing patient (representative) contributions to challenge the process; (3) bringing new argumentations in from outside and weaving them together; and (4) formulating recommendations to societal stakeholders. We argue that in these ways, the appraisal committee achieves societal weighing rationality, as the committee actively uses argumentations from society and embeds the decision outcome in society.

Patients and public are important stakeholders in health technology assessment but the level of involvement is low - a call to action

BACKGROUND

Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies have an important role in the evaluation and approval of new technologies. They determine their value within a health system so to promote equitable, quality care with available healthcare resources. Many HTA agencies have some mechanism for involving patients in their processes, but there is great variability and an absence of comprehensive, robust practices for involvement. The accelerating pace of medical innovation creates a need to improve the depth and breadth of patient involvement in the HTA process.

MAIN BODY

In this 'Call to action', we present ideas from three HTA expert commentaries calling for collaborative learning and to share innovative ideas for changes in HTA. We also draw on examples of HTA agencies creatively pursuing this goal. We propose a 'Call to action' for HTA stakeholders to undertake serious dialogue with patient advocates aimed at creating shared goals. HTA agencies can use these goals to ensure meaningful patient involvement at every step of the HTA process. Five elements are explored. In 'Recognizing the value of shared purpose', we highlight examples of HTA agencies that have patients working in partnership with medical practitioners and HTA staff. Results include improved processes that instil confidence. 'Committing to patient involvement as part of HTA culture' highlights several initiatives aimed at changes in HTA organisational culture to be more inclusive of patients. In 'Aligning patient and HTA goals' we cite work in Belgium and New Zealand which places a greater emphasis on quality of life rather than life expectancy and cost-effectiveness. By 'Integrating patient involvement at every step of the HTA process' patients can make vital contributions at every stage of the HTA process. We provide two examples of where HTA agencies have successfully involved patients early in the process in order to broaden the scope of evaluations. 'Developing a common language and working together' can support transformative dialogue through 'unified language'.

CONCLUSION

The authors of this commentary ask that agencies and stakeholders involved in HTA take up this call to work together for visionary and transformative elevation of the voice of patients in HTA worldwide.

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 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.

Co-construction of health technology assessment recommendations with patients: An example with cardiac defibrillator replacement

CONTEXT

The National Institute of Excellence in Health and Social Services (INESSS), which functions as the Québec health technology assessment (HTA) agency, tested a new way to engage patients along with health-care professionals in the co-construction of recommendations regarding implantable cardioverter-defibrillator replacement.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article was to describe the process of co-construction of recommendations and to propose methods of building best practices for patient involvement (PI) in HTA.

DESIGN

Throughout the process, documents were collected and participant observations were made. Individual interviews were conducted with patients, health-care professionals and the INESSS scientific team, from January to March 2018.

RESULTS

Three committees were established: an expert patient committee to reflect on patient experience literature; an expert health professional committee to reflect on medical literature; and a co-construction committee through which both patients and health-care professionals contributed to develop the recommendations. The expert patients validated and contextualized a literature review produced by the scientific team. This allowed the scientists to consider aspects related to the patient experience and to integrate the feedback from patients into HTA recommendations. The most important factor contributing to a positive PI experience was the structured methodology for selecting patient participants, and a key factor that inhibited the process was a lack of training in PI on the part of the scientific team.

CONCLUSIONS

This experience demonstrates that it is possible to co-construct recommendations, even for technically complex HTA subjects, through a more democratic process than usual which led to more patient-focused guidance.

Understanding and using patient experiences as evidence in healthcare priority setting

BACKGROUND

In many countries, committees make priority-setting decisions in order to control healthcare costs. These decisions take into account relevant criteria, including clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and need, and are supported by evidence usually drawn from clinical and economic studies. These sources of evidence do not include the specific perspective and information that patients can provide about the condition and treatment.

METHODS

Drawing on arguments from political philosophy and ethics that are the ethical basis for many priority-setting bodies, the authors argue that criteria like need and its effects on patients and caregivers are best supported by evidence generated from patients' experiences. Social sciences and mixed-methods research support the generation and collection of robust evidence.

RESULTS

Patient experience is required for a decision-making process that considers all relevant evidence. For fair priority-setting, decision-makers should consider relevant evidence and reasons, so patient experience evidence should not be ignored. Patient experience must be gathered in a way that generates high quality and methodologically rigorous evidence. Established quantitative and qualitative methods can assure that evidence is systematic, adherent to quality standards, and valid. Patient, like clinical, evidence should be subject to a transparent review process.

DISCUSSION

Considering all relevant evidence gives each person an equal opportunity at having their treatment funded. Patient experience gives context to the clinical evidence and also directly informs our understanding of the nature of the condition and its effects, including patients' needs, how to meet them, and the burden of illness. Such evidence also serves to contextualise reported effects of the treatment. The requirement to include patient experience as evidence has important policy implications for bodies that make priority-setting decisions since it proposes that new types of evidence reviews are commissioned and considered.

Strategizing health technology assessment for containment of cancer drug costs in a universal health care system: Case of the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review

A universal health care system has been a source of both identity and pride for Canadians for the last 6 decades. Currently, Canada actively negotiates the prices of cancer drugs but is not immune to their overwhelming financial toxicities. Prices of cancer drugs are set to ensure maximal profit based on what the market will bear rather than by the value they offer or solely because of the cost of research and development, as often is claimed by the manufacturers. The pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) is mandated to provide funding recommendations to Canada's provinces and territories. For the most part, the pCODR has been crucial in assessing the cost-effectiveness and feasibility of new drugs in the Canadian context but it could assist more in safeguarding payers against extreme drug costs. Herein, the author suggests a few strategies by which national efforts such as the pCODR and its partners can help Canada to become a leader in facilitating value-based sustainable cancer care.

Patient Preference Studies During Early Drug Development: Aligning Stakeholders to Ensure Development Plans Meet Patient Needs

Although patient preferences have been studied broadly for marketed products or around the time of submission to authorities and launch, patient preference studies have rarely been used during the early drug development phases. In this paper, we formulate three hypotheses supporting the use of patient preference studies in early product development: (1) integration of the patient perspective into the development process from phase 1 onwards will result in healthcare solutions with outcomes that best address patients' needs; (2) a structured process to build patient-based evidence involving partnerships between patients and other key stakeholders will improve alignment of development activities with the needs of patients; (3) quantitative patient preference research built on robust qualitative insights is necessary to strengthen development decisions in the interests of patients. To illustrate such a structured process, we describe qualitative insights research (social media analysis and online bulletin boards) and quantitative patient preference studies in dry eye disease and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis conducted during early product development by a pharmaceutical company to generate patient-based evidence. The outputs from such early patient preference studies are being used to inform patient reported outcome strategies, clinical development strategies, product design and delivery features, and form the basis for early dialog with regulators, health technology assessment (HTA) bodies and payers to ensure focus and alignment on patient-relevant endpoints. Furthermore, to discuss and theoretically substantiate our hypotheses, we review how different groups and organizations are working to embrace fully the patient perspective in product development and healthcare decision-making. The hypotheses are commensurate with the general trend toward patient-centered healthcare and the activities initiated by regulators, HTA agencies, and patient organizations. We advocate that all healthcare players should actively contribute to aligning on best practices concerning choice of methodologies and engage in multi-stakeholder dialog along the entire product development chain, to realize health technologies that best meet the needs of patients.

A Qualitative Study of the Views of Health and Social Care Decision-makers on the Role of Wellbeing in Resource Allocation Decisions in the UK

There has been growing international interest in the role that wellbeing measures could play within policy making in health and social care. This project explored the opinions of a sample of UK decision-makers on the relevance of wellbeing and subjective wellbeing (by which we mean good and bad feelings or overall evaluations of life, such as life satisfaction) for resource allocation decisions within health and social care. Through these discussions we draw out the perceived advantages and the potential concerns that decision-makers have about broadening out to wellbeing and subjective wellbeing rather than just measuring health. Three focus groups were conducted: with members of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Citizen’s Council, with a Health and Wellbeing Board at a Local Authority and with Public Health England. In addition, eleven semi-structured interviews were held with staff from NHS England and members of a range of NICE committees. We identified a range of opinions about the role of wellbeing and a broadly held view that there was a need for improved consideration of broader quality of life outcomes. We also identified considerable caution in relation to the use of subjective wellbeing.

Decisions of Value: Going Backstage Comment on "Contextual Factors Influencing Cost and Quality Decisions in Health and Care: A Structured Evidence Review and Narrative Synthesis"

This commentary expands on two of the key themes briefly raised in the paper involving analysis of the evidence about key contextual influences on decisions of value. The first theme focuses on the need to explore in more detail what is called backstage decision-making looking at how actual decisions are made drawing on evidence from ethnographies about decision-making. These studies point to less of an emphasis on instrumental and calculative forms of decision-making with more of an emphasis on more pragmatic rationality. The second related theme picks up on the issue of sources of information as a contextual influence particularly highlighting the salience of uncertainty or information deficits. It is argued that there are a range of different types of uncertainties, not only associated with information deficits, which are found particularly in allocative types of decisions of value. This means that the decision-making process although attempting to be linear and rational, tends to be characterised by a form of navigation where the decision-makers navigate their way through the uncertainties inherent and overtly manifested in the decision-making process.

Patient and caregiver involvement in the formulation of guideline questions: findings from the European Academy of Neurology guideline on palliative care of people with severe multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Patient and public involvement in clinical practice guideline development is recommended to increase guideline trustworthiness and relevance. The aim was to engage multiple sclerosis (MS) patients and caregivers in the definition of the key questions to be answered in the European Academy of Neurology guideline on palliative care of people with severe MS.

METHODS

A mixed methods approach was used: an international online survey launched by the national MS societies of eight countries, after pilot testing/debriefing on 20 MS patients and 18 caregivers, focus group meetings of Italian and German MS patients and caregivers.

RESULTS

Of 1199 participants, 951 (79%) completed the whole online survey and 934 from seven countries were analysed: 751 (80%) were MS patients (74% women, mean age 46.1) and 183 (20%) were caregivers (36% spouses/partners, 72% women, mean age 47.4). Participants agreed/strongly agreed on inclusion of the nine pre-specified topics (from 89% for 'advance care planning' to 98% for 'multidisciplinary rehabilitation'), and <5% replied 'I prefer not to answer' to any topic. There were 569 free comments: 182 (32%) on the pre-specified topics, 227 (40%) on additional topics (16 guideline-pertinent) and 160 (28%) on outcomes. Five focus group meetings (three of MS patients, two of caregivers, and overall 35 participants) corroborated the survey findings. In addition, they allowed an explanation of the guideline production process and the exploration of patient-important outcomes and of taxing issues.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple sclerosis patient and caregiver involvement was resource and time intensive, but rewarding. It was the key for the formulation of the 10 guideline questions and for the identification of patient-important outcomes.

Development of a standard form for assessing research grant applications from the perspective of patients

BACKGROUND

Health-research funding organizations are increasingly involving patient representatives in the assessment of grant applications. However, there is no consensus on an appropriate scope or definition of the patient perspective and the eligibility of potential patient reviewers to take on this role. The aim of our study is to develop a consensus-based template for patient reviewers to assess research grant applications from the patients' perspective. We also defined a glossary of terms and definitions to help the patient reviewers in their assessment role.

METHODS

Together with members of the Dutch Association of Health Care Funds (SGF) we developed an assessment form for patient reviewers following constant comparative analysis of existing review forms, a survey among all stakeholders, testing in three pilot training sessions, and a structured consensus process.

RESULTS

A small SGF working group collected and analysed 20 patient assessment forms, used by 12 health foundations and one patient organization. One systematic literature review was included. By comparing and discussing items and assessment categories in subsequent workshops, a first template form was developed. This version was electronically distributed among the members of 10 patient panels of whom 67 patient reviewers filled in the survey. A second version was then presented at a final working group meeting where consensus was reached about a template with 12 categories covering 41 items important for patients. A brochure for patient reviewers, a guide for panel coordinators and a glossary were developed to accompany future implementation of the template.

CONCLUSIONS

A template for patient reviewers to assess research grant applications is now available, based on the consensus of 21 Dutch health foundations.

Decision making in NICE single technological appraisals: How does NICE incorporate patient perspectives?

CONTEXT

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has an explicit mandate to include patient and public involvement in the appraisal of medicines to be available for funding on the NHS. NICE involves an appraisal committee who are required to take on board experiential evidence from patient experts alongside population-based evidence on clinical and cost-effectiveness when making a decision whether to fund a drug.

OBJECTIVE

This paper considers how NICE Single Technological Appraisal (STA) committees attempt to incorporate the views of patients in making decisions about funding medicines on the NHS.

METHODS

A prospective design was employed to follow three pharmaceutical products involving three different appraisal committees. Three data collection methods were used: analysis of documentary evidence sent by NICE, non-participant unstructured observations of the open and closed sessions of meetings and qualitative interviews.

SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS

Unstructured non-participant observations were carried out at nine STA meetings, and 41 semi-structured interviews were undertaken with committee members from NICE's STA committees, patient experts, analysts from NICE's project team and drug manufacturers.

RESULTS

Our analysis showed how the committees displayed a preference for an ideal-type of patient representative, disagreement among the committee when weighing-up patient statements in the STA process and more pre-preparation support for patient involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Although NICE has attempted to adopt an approach flexible to patients and carers through formal decision-making arrangements that incorporate patient views, nonetheless, the processes of the STAs can in fact undermine the very evidence collected from patient representatives.