Assessing the impact of deliberative processes on the views of participants: is it 'in one ear and out the other'?

Moving beyond the Court of Public Opinion: A Citizens' Jury Exploring the Public's Values around Funding Decisions for Ultra-Orphan Drugs

Health system decision-makers need to understand the value of new technology to make "value for money" decisions. Typically, narrow definitions of value are used. This paper reports on a Canadian Citizens' Jury which was convened to elicit those aspects of value that are important to the public. The criteria used by the public to determine value included those related to the patient, those directly related to caregivers and those directly created for society. Their choices were not binary (e.g., cost vs. health gained), but rather involved multiple factors (e.g., with respect to patient factors: disease severity, health gained with the drug, existence of alternatives, life expectancy, patient age and affordability). Overall, Jurors prioritized funding treatments for ultra-rare disease populations when the treatment offered significant improvements in health and quality of life, and when the pre-treatment health state was considered extremely poor. The prevalence of the disease by itself was not a factor in the choices. Some of the findings differ from previous work, which use survey methods. In our Citizens' Jury, Jurors were able to become more familiar with the question at hand and were exposed to a broad and balanced collection of viewpoints before and throughout engaging in the exercises. This deliberative approach allows for a more nuanced approach to understanding value.

Moral and Social Values in 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"

An evidence-informed deliberative process (EDP) is defined as "a practical and stepwise approach for health technology assessment (HTA) bodies to enhance legitimate health benefit package design based on deliberation between stakeholders to identify, reflect and learn about the meaning and importance of values, informed by evidence on these values." In this commentary, I discuss some considerations for EDPs that arise from acknowledging the difference between social and moral values. First, the best practices for implementing EDPs may differ depending on whether the approach is grounded in moral versus social values. Second, the goals of deliberation may differ when focused on moral versus social values. I conclude by offering some considerations for future research to support the use of EDPs in practice, including the need to assess how different approaches to appraisal (eg, more quantitative versus qualitative) impact perceptions of the value of deliberation itself.

Quantifying public preferences for healthcare priorities in Taiwan through an integrated citizens jury and discrete choice experiment

Priority setting is a critical process for national healthcare systems that need to allocate limited resources across unlimited healthcare demands. In recent decades, health policymakers have identified the need to combine technical dimensions of priority setting with political dimensions relating to community values. A range of methods for engaging the public in priority setting has been developed, yet there is no consensus around the most effective methodology. A 2014 paper proposed the integration of two methods currently used for soliciting public preferences around health care services: i) an individual survey instrument, Discrete Choice Experiments (DCEs) and ii) Citizen Juries (CJs), a group-based model that incorporates education and deliberative dialogue. This pilot study is among the first to empirically test this integrated method to assess its value across two domains: does the CJ process alter participant preferences and are the consensus values of the CJ captured by the individualistic DCE? The two-part, mixed methods study was administered in Taipei, Taiwan in August of 2016. Twenty-seven participants completed a DCE as a baseline pre-test, ranking a set of attributes in terms of importance for future resource allocation under Taiwan's National Health Insurance System. Twenty of the participants next took part in the integrated CJ-DCE method, which consisted of education and facilitated dialogue through a CJ, followed by retaking the DCE survey. Participant preferences changed after undergoing the CJ process and these new, group-based preferences were reflected in the second DCE, meaning participants did not revert to their original individualistic preferences. The results of this study demonstrate that the integrated CJ-DCE method adds value in allowing an ethically communitarian set of values to be developed and captured via an individualistic methodology. Further testing is needed to investigate the reliability of our findings and how it may be implemented to maximize public acceptance.

[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.

Long-term views on chronic kidney disease research priorities among stakeholders engaged in a priority-setting partnership: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Patients and stakeholders are increasingly engaging in health research to help address evidence-practice gaps and improve health-care delivery. We previously engaged patients, caregivers, health-care providers (HCPs) and policymakers in identifying priorities for chronic kidney disease (CKD) research.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to explore participants' views on the research priorities and prioritization process 2 years after the exercise took place.

DESIGN

In this qualitative descriptive study, individual interviews were conducted and analysed using an inductive, thematic analysis approach.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Participants resided across Canada. We purposively sampled across stakeholder groups (CKD patients, caregivers, HCPs and policymakers) and types of engagement (wiki, workshop and/or steering committee) from the previous CKD priority-setting project.

RESULTS

Across 23 interviews, participants discussed their research priorities over time, views on the prioritization process and perceived applicability of the priorities. Even though their individual priorities may have changed, participants remained in agreement overall with the previously identified priorities, and some perceived a distinction between patient and HCP priorities. They tended to balance individual priorities with their broader potential impact and viewed the prioritization process as systematic, collaborative and legitimate. However, participants acknowledged challenges to applying the priorities and emphasized the importance of communicating the project's outcomes upon its completion.

CONCLUSION

Two years after engaging in CKD research prioritization, stakeholder participants remained in agreement with the previously identified priorities, which they felt reflected group deliberation and consensus. Rapport and communication were highlighted as key elements supporting effective engagement in research prioritization.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Can Severity Outweigh Smaller Numbers? A Deliberative Perspective from Canada

OBJECTIVES

To use structured deliberation to elicit and describe the values of the public in Alberta, Canada, on the question of whether the severity of a rare condition can justify it being given priority in funding over common conditions affecting larger numbers of patients, and what aspects of a condition drive this judgment.

METHODS

Thematic analysis of transcripts of a group deliberative exercise carried out as part of two citizens' juries. The exercise was designed to elicit participants' conception of disease severity, and trade-offs between helping small groups with severe conditions and larger groups with less severe conditions.

RESULTS

In trading off severity and numbers, all groups were willing to choose a more severely ill but smaller group of patients over a less severely ill but larger group of patients, although how much of a severity differential was required varied between groups. Pain that could not be relieved by alternative means was the strongest motivator for choosing the smaller group. Other symptoms with no alternative means of relief were strong motivators as well.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that, all else being equal, the public would support giving priority to a smaller but more severely ill group of patients over a larger group when prioritizing the needs of the few is life-saving, extends life enough to give hope of future improvement, and relieves otherwise intractable symptoms, especially pain.

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

Background

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

Design

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Prioritizing government funding of adolescent vaccinations: recommendations from young people on a citizens' jury

OBJECTIVE

Adolescents' views, and preferences are often over-looked when public health policies that affect them are designed and implemented. The purpose of this study was to describe young people's views and preferences for determining government funding priorities for adolescent immunization programs.

METHODS

In 2015 we conducted a youth jury in metropolitan Adelaide, South Australia to deliberate on the question "What criteria should we use to decide which vaccines for young people in Australia should receive public funding?" Fifteen youth aged 15-19 years participated in the jury. Jury members were recruited from the general community through a market research company using a stratified sampling technique.

RESULTS

The jury's key priorities for determining publically funded vaccines were: Disease severity - whether the vaccine preventable disease (VPD) was life threatening and impacted on quality of life. Transmissibility - VPDs with high/fast transmission and high prevalence. Demonstration of cost-effectiveness, taking into account purchase price, program administration, economic and societal gain. The jury's recommendations for vaccine funding policy were strongly underpinned by the belief that it was critical to ensure that funding was targeted to not only population groups who would be medically at risk from vaccine preventable diseases, but also to socially and economically disadvantaged population groups. A novel recommendation proposed by the jury was that there should be a process for establishing criteria to remove vaccines from publically funded programs as a complement to the process for adding new vaccines.

CONCLUSIONS

Young people have valuable contributions to make in priority setting for health programs and their views should be incorporated into the framing of health policies that directly affect them.

Participatory health system priority setting: Evidence from a budget experiment

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