2
|
Hashem F, Calnan MW, Brown PR. Decision making in NICE single technological appraisals: How does NICE incorporate patient perspectives? Health Expect 2017; 21:128-137. [PMID: 28686809 PMCID: PMC5750768 DOI: 10.1111/hex.12594] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/08/2017] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
3
|
Moreno EM, Moriana JA. User involvement in the implementation of clinical guidelines for common mental health disorders: a review and compilation of strategies and resources. Health Res Policy Syst 2016; 14:61. [PMID: 27507569 PMCID: PMC4979121 DOI: 10.1186/s12961-016-0135-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2016] [Accepted: 07/19/2016] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is now broad consensus regarding the importance of involving users in the process of implementing guidelines. Few studies, however, have addressed this issue, let alone the implementation of guidelines for common mental health disorders. The aim of this study is to compile and describe implementation strategies and resources related to common clinical mental health disorders targeted at service users. METHODS The literature was reviewed and resources for the implementation of clinical guidelines were compiled using the PRISMA model. A mixed qualitative and quantitative analysis was performed based on a series of categories developed ad hoc. RESULTS A total of 263 items were included in the preliminary analysis and 64 implementation resources aimed at users were analysed in depth. A wide variety of types, sources and formats were identified, including guides (40%), websites (29%), videos and leaflets, as well as instruments for the implementation of strategies regarding information and education (64%), self-care, or users' assessment of service quality. CONCLUSIONS The results reveal the need to establish clear criteria for assessing the quality of implementation materials in general and standardising systems to classify user-targeted strategies. The compilation and description of key elements of strategies and resources for users can be of interest in designing materials and specific actions for this target audience, as well as improving the implementation of clinical guidelines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eliana M Moreno
- Department of Psychology, University of Cordoba, Calle San Alberto Magno S/N, 14071, Cordoba, Spain. .,Maimonides Institute for Research in Biomedicine of Cordoba (IMIBIC), Reina Sofia University Hospital, Avda Menéndez Pidal s/n, 14004, Cordoba, Spain.
| | - Juan Antonio Moriana
- Department of Psychology, University of Cordoba, Calle San Alberto Magno S/N, 14071, Cordoba, Spain.,Maimonides Institute for Research in Biomedicine of Cordoba (IMIBIC), Reina Sofia University Hospital, Avda Menéndez Pidal s/n, 14004, Cordoba, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Stakeholder involvement: how to do it right: article 9 in Integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2013; 9:269-73. [PMID: 23256170 DOI: 10.1513/pats.201208-062st] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Professional societies, like many other organizations around the world, have recognized the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that healthcare recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence with input from appropriate stakeholders. This is the ninth of a series of 14 articles that were prepared by an international panel to advise guideline developers in respiratory and other diseases on approaches for guideline development. We updated a review of the literature on stakeholder involvement, focusing on six key questions. METHODS In this review we addressed the following questions. (1) What are "stakeholders"? (2) Why involve stakeholders in guidelines? (3) At what stage should stakeholders contribute to guidelines? (4) What are the potential barriers to integrating stakeholder involvement? (5) How can stakeholders be involved effectively? (6) Should anyone be excluded from the process? We searched PubMed and other databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We did not conduct our own systematic reviews. Our conclusions are based on available evidence, the experience of guideline developers, and workshop discussions. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Stakeholders are all those who have a legitimate interest in a guideline. They include healthcare professionals, patients and caregivers, public and private funding bodies, managers, employers, and manufacturers. Their engagement is justified for several reasons, including limitations of evidence, principles of transparency and democracy, ownership, and potential policy implications. They have a role to play at different points of guideline development, but their involvement can be complex. To be successful, stakeholder engagement needs to be inclusive, equitable, and adequately resourced.
Collapse
|
5
|
Archambault PM. WikiBuild: a new application to support patient and health care professional involvement in the development of patient support tools. J Med Internet Res 2011; 13:e114. [PMID: 22155746 PMCID: PMC3278100 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.1961] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/06/2011] [Revised: 11/10/2011] [Accepted: 11/18/2011] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
Active patient and public involvement as partners in their own health care and in the development of health services is key to achieving a health care system that is responsive to patients’ needs and values. It promotes better use of the health care system, and improves health outcomes, quality of life and patient satisfaction. By involving patients and health care professionals as partners in the creation and updating of patient health support tools, wikis—highly accessible, interactive vehicles of communication—have the potential to empower users to implement these support tools in daily life.
Acknowledging the potential of wikis, and recognizing that they capitalize on the free and open access to information, scientists, opinion leaders and patient advocates have suggested that wikis could help decision-making constituencies improve the delivery of health care. They might also decrease its cost and improve access to knowledge within developing countries. However, little is known about the efficacy of wikis in helping to attain these goals. There is also a need to know more about the intention of patients and health care workers to use wikis, in what circumstances and what factors will influence their use of wikis.
In this issue of the Journal of Medical Internet Research, Gupta et al describe how they developed and tested a new wiki-inspired application to improve asthma care. The researchers involved patients with asthma, primary care physicians, pulmonologists and certified asthma educators in the construction of an asthma action plan. Their paper—entitled “WikiBuild: a new online collaboration process for multistakeholder tool development and consensus building”—is the first description of a wiki-inspired technology built to involve patients and health care professionals in the development of a patient support tool. This innovative study has made important contributions toward how wikis could be generalized to involve multiple stakeholders in the development of other knowledge translation tools such as clinical practice guidelines or decision aids. More specifically, Gupta et al have uncovered potential action mechanisms toward increasing usage of these tools by patients and health care professionals. These are decreasing hierarchical influences, increasing usability and adapting a tool to local context.
More research is now needed to determine if the use of the resulting wiki-developed plan will actually be higher than a plan developed using other methods. Furthermore, there is also a need to assess the intention of participants to continue using wiki-based processes on an ongoing basis. It is in this dynamic and continuous retroaction loop that the support tool users—both patients and health care professionals—can adapt and improve the product after its real-life shortcomings are revealed and as new evidence becomes available. As such, a wiki would be more than a simple patient support development tool, but could also become a dynamic and interactive repository and delivery tool that would facilitate ongoing and sustainable patient and professional engagement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Patrick Michel Archambault
- Centre de santé et de services sociaux Alphonse-Desjardins (Centre hospitalier affilié universitaire de Lévis), Lévis, QC, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Légaré F, Boivin A, van der Weijden T, Pakenham C, Burgers J, Légaré J, St-Jacques S, Gagnon S. Patient and Public Involvement in Clinical Practice Guidelines. Med Decis Making 2011; 31:E45-74. [DOI: 10.1177/0272989x11424401] [Citation(s) in RCA: 120] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Background. The role of patient and public involvement programs (PPIPs) in developing and implementing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) has generated great interest. Purpose. The authors sought to identify key components of PPIPs used in developing and implementing CPGs. Data sources. The authors searched bibliographic databases and contacted relevant organizations. Study selection. In total, 2161 articles and reports were retrieved on PPIPs in the development and implementation of CPGs. Of these, 71 qualified for inclusion in the review. Data extraction. Reviewers independently extracted data on key components of PPIPs and barriers and facilitators to their operation. Data synthesis. Over half of the studies were published after 2002, and more than half originated from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Germany. CPGs that involved patients and the public addressed a variety of health problems, especially mental health and cancer. The most frequently cited objective for using PPIPs in developing CPGs was to incorporate patients’ values or perspectives in CPG recommendations. Patients and their families and caregivers were the parties most often involved. Methods used to recruit PPIP participants included soliciting through patient/public organizations, sending invitations, and receiving referrals and recruits from clinicians. Patients and the public most often participated by taking part in a CPG working group, workshop, meeting, seminar, literature review, or consultation such as a focus group, individual interview, or survey. Patients and the public principally helped formulate recommendations and revise drafts. Limitations. The authors did not contact the authors of the studies. Conclusion. This literature review provides an extensive knowledge base for making PPIPs more effective when developing and implementing CPGs. More research is needed to assess the impact of PPIPs and resources they require.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- France Légaré
- Canada Research Chair in Implementation of Shared Decision-Making in Primary Care, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada (FL)
- Research Center, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec (FL, SG)
- Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (AB, JB)
- Department of General Practice, School for Public Health and Primary Care (Caphri), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands (TVW)
- Ministère de la santé et des Services Sociaux de Québec, Québec, Québec, Canada (CP)
| | - Antoine Boivin
- Canada Research Chair in Implementation of Shared Decision-Making in Primary Care, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada (FL)
- Research Center, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec (FL, SG)
- Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (AB, JB)
- Department of General Practice, School for Public Health and Primary Care (Caphri), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands (TVW)
- Ministère de la santé et des Services Sociaux de Québec, Québec, Québec, Canada (CP)
| | - Trudy van der Weijden
- Canada Research Chair in Implementation of Shared Decision-Making in Primary Care, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada (FL)
- Research Center, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec (FL, SG)
- Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (AB, JB)
- Department of General Practice, School for Public Health and Primary Care (Caphri), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands (TVW)
- Ministère de la santé et des Services Sociaux de Québec, Québec, Québec, Canada (CP)
| | - Christine Pakenham
- Canada Research Chair in Implementation of Shared Decision-Making in Primary Care, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada (FL)
- Research Center, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec (FL, SG)
- Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (AB, JB)
- Department of General Practice, School for Public Health and Primary Care (Caphri), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands (TVW)
- Ministère de la santé et des Services Sociaux de Québec, Québec, Québec, Canada (CP)
| | - Jako Burgers
- Canada Research Chair in Implementation of Shared Decision-Making in Primary Care, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada (FL)
- Research Center, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec (FL, SG)
- Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (AB, JB)
- Department of General Practice, School for Public Health and Primary Care (Caphri), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands (TVW)
- Ministère de la santé et des Services Sociaux de Québec, Québec, Québec, Canada (CP)
| | - Jean Légaré
- Canada Research Chair in Implementation of Shared Decision-Making in Primary Care, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada (FL)
- Research Center, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec (FL, SG)
- Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (AB, JB)
- Department of General Practice, School for Public Health and Primary Care (Caphri), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands (TVW)
- Ministère de la santé et des Services Sociaux de Québec, Québec, Québec, Canada (CP)
| | - Sylvie St-Jacques
- Canada Research Chair in Implementation of Shared Decision-Making in Primary Care, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada (FL)
- Research Center, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec (FL, SG)
- Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (AB, JB)
- Department of General Practice, School for Public Health and Primary Care (Caphri), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands (TVW)
- Ministère de la santé et des Services Sociaux de Québec, Québec, Québec, Canada (CP)
| | - Susie Gagnon
- Canada Research Chair in Implementation of Shared Decision-Making in Primary Care, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada (FL)
- Research Center, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec (FL, SG)
- Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (AB, JB)
- Department of General Practice, School for Public Health and Primary Care (Caphri), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands (TVW)
- Ministère de la santé et des Services Sociaux de Québec, Québec, Québec, Canada (CP)
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Gagnon MP, Lepage-Savary D, Gagnon J, St-Pierre M, Simard C, Rhainds M, Lemieux R, Gauvin FP, Desmartis M, Légaré F. Introducing patient perspective in health technology assessment at the local level. BMC Health Serv Res 2009; 9:54. [PMID: 19327160 PMCID: PMC2671501 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-9-54] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/06/2009] [Accepted: 03/27/2009] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Recognizing the importance of increased patient participation in healthcare decisions leads decision makers to consider effective ways to incorporate patient perspectives in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) processes. The implementation of local health HTA units in university hospitals in Quebec provides a unique opportunity to foster an increased participation of patients in decisions regarding health technologies and clinical interventions. This project explores strategies that could be effective in involving patients in HTA activities at the local level. To do so, three objectives are pursued: 1) To synthesise international knowledge and experiences on patient and public involvement in HTA activities; 2) To explore the perceptions of stakeholders (administrators, clinical managers, healthcare professionals, HTA producers, and patients) regarding strategies for involving patients in various HTA activities; and 3) To produce a consensual strategic framework that could guide interventions for involving patients in HTA activities at the local level. Methods A systematic review of the literature will be conducted to synthesise international knowledge and experiments regarding the implication of patients and public in HTA. Then, focus groups will be carried out with representatives of various stakeholder groups in order to explore their perceptions regarding patient participation in HTA. Based on findings from the systematic review and the focus groups, a framework to support patient participation in HTA activities will be proposed. It will then be validated during a deliberative meeting with the research team, composed of scientists and decision makers, and representatives from different groups involved in HTA in Quebec. This deliberative meeting will aim at identifying the type and the degree of participation as well as the adequate timing for involving patients in local HTA activities. Discussion Given the actual state of evidence, integrating patient perspective in HTA activities has the potential to improve the quality of healthcare services. This study provides an opportunity to bridge the gap between HTA producers and its ultimate end-user: the patient. It will provide guidance to support local HTA units in Quebec and elsewhere in their decisions regarding patient participation. The framework developed could be applied to design and implement strategies for involving patients in HTA activities.
Collapse
|