"Getting to the Table": Changing Ideas about Public and Patient Involvement in Canadian Drug Assessment

Patient and Public Involvement in Health Economics Modelling Raises the Need for Normative Guidance

Patient and public involvement in health economics research and health technology assessment has been increasing for some time; however, patient and public involvement in health economics modelling is a more recent development. One reason to advance this type of involvement is to help appropriately manage the social and ethical value judgements that are required throughout model development and interpretation. At the same time, patient and public involvement in health economics modelling raises numerous practical and philosophical issues that invite discussion and debate. Recently, we attended an engagement event which invited patients, members of the public, researchers and decision-makers to discuss some of these issues. One priority that emerged in the discussion was to develop normative guidance for patient and public involvement in health economics modelling. In this article, we reflect on this goal from our own perspective, focusing on why normative guidance is needed and what questions that guidance should answer.

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

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

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

Objectives

Deliberative processes for health technology assessment (HTA) are intended to facilitate participatory decision making, using discussion and open dialogue between stake-holders. Increasing attention is being given to deliberative processes, but guidance is lacking for those who wish to design or use them. Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) and ISPOR—The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research initiated a joint Task Force to address this gap.

Methods

The joint Task Force consisted of fifteen members with different backgrounds, perspectives, and expertise relevant to the field. It developed guidance and a checklist for deliberative processes for HTA. The guidance builds upon the few, existing initiatives in the field, as well as input from the HTA community following an established consultation plan. In addition, the guidance was subject to two rounds of peer review.

Results

A deliberative process for HTA consists of procedures, activities, and events that support the informed and critical examination of an issue and the weighing of arguments and evidence to guide a subsequent decision. Guidance and an accompanying checklist are provided for (i) developing the governance and structure of an HTA program and (ii) informing how the various stages of an HTA process might be managed using deliberation.

Conclusions

The guidance and the checklist contain a series of questions, grouped by six phases of a model deliberative process. They are offered as practical tools for those wishing to establish or improve deliberative processes for HTA that are fit for local contexts. The tools can also be used for independent scrutiny of deliberative processes.

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

OBJECTIVES

Deliberative processes for health technology assessment (HTA) are intended to facilitate participatory decision making, using discussion and open dialogue between stakeholders. Increasing attention is being given to deliberative processes, but guidance is lacking for those who wish to design or use them. Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) and ISPOR-The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research initiated a joint Task Force to address this gap.

METHODS

The joint Task Force consisted of 15 members with different backgrounds, perspectives, and expertise relevant to the field. It developed guidance and a checklist for deliberative processes for HTA. The guidance builds upon the few, existing initiatives in the field, as well as input from the HTA community following an established consultation plan. In addition, the guidance was subject to 2 rounds of peer review.

RESULTS

A deliberative process for HTA consists of procedures, activities, and events that support the informed and critical examination of an issue and the weighing of arguments and evidence to guide a subsequent decision. Guidance and an accompanying checklist are provided for (i) developing the governance and structure of an HTA program and (ii) informing how the various stages of an HTA process might be managed using deliberation.

CONCLUSIONS

The guidance and the checklist contain a series of questions, grouped by 6 phases of a model deliberative process. They are offered as practical tools for those wishing to establish or improve deliberative processes for HTA that are fit for local contexts. The tools can also be used for independent scrutiny of deliberative processes.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Valuing patient engagement: Reflexive learning in evidence generation practices for health technology assessment

Much attention in health technology assessment (HTA), a health system governance mechanism used for determining the value of health technologies, is being paid to improving the quality and patient-relevance of the evidence used in assessment pratices. Whilst the direct involvement of patient actors throughout HTA processes has become a more routine element of institutional practice, the 'impacts' of patient engagement (PE) initiatives have proven difficult to determine and enhance. In reflexive governance theories, reflexive learning is a critical mechanism of multi-stakeholder arrangements that better handles the complexities of technologies and how they are understood through governance practices. This paper explores how reflexive learning can be used to build a richer conceptualisation of PE in HTA, in order to generate suggestions for enhancing PE practices and their impact. We critically apply reflexive learning insights on qualitative data derived from the co-creation process of a PE evaluation framework, organised through an EU project focused on strengthening PE practices across medicines development (2018-2020), including 24 interactive case studies, 3 multi-stakeholder workshops, and our observations throughout the project. The findings characterise two dimensions of reflexive learning in PE: First, reflexive learning refers to the adaptive reorganisation of evidence generating practices, including the revision of medicines' evaluation criteria and the conditions under which evidence 'relevant' to HTA is constructed. Second, reflexive learning spotlights the sociopolitics which shape technology evaluation. Four themes affecting meaningful and sustained PE in medicines development were analysed: institutional boundaries due to established evaluation criteria; timing of engagements; network relations between institutional actors; and the politics of patient representation. Extending beyond discrete PE activities and their reported impacts, reflexive forms of learning are crucial to yielding more 'meaningful' PE for HTA and medicines development, facilitating a HTA practice that more meaningfully deals with the complexities of medicines evidence generation.

A voice to be heard: patient and public involvement in health technology assessment and clinical practice guidelines in Malaysia

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health technology assessment (HTA) is widely promoted to ensure that all health-related decisions are made after taking into consideration the viewpoints of important stakeholders. In Malaysia, patients or their representatives have been involved in the development of HTA and Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) since 2009 and their influences have been growing steadily over the years. This paper aimed to describe the journey, achievements, challenges, and future direction of the PPI throughout all stages of the development and implementation of HTA and CPG in Malaysia. Currently, in Malaysia, patients or their representatives are mainly involved during the initial development of HTA and CPG drafts as well as during the internal and external reviews. Additionally, they are also encouraged to be involved during the implementation of HTA and CPG recommendations. Although their involvement in this aspect has slowly increased over time, challenges remain in the form of limited representativeness of selected patients or carers, uncertainty on the level of patient involvement allowed during the HTA/CPG development processes, and limited health literacy, which affect their ability to contribute meaningfully throughout the processes. Continuous improvement in these processes is important as patients or their representatives play a pivotal role in ensuring transparency, accountability, and credibility throughout the HTA/CPG development and decision-making processes.

Patient and public involvement in health technology assessment: update of a systematic review of international experiences

OBJECTIVE

To summarize current evidence on patient and public involvement (PPI) in health technology assessment (HTA) in order to synthesize the barriers and facilitators, and to propose a framework to assess its impact.

METHODS

We conducted an update of a systematic review published in 2011 considering the recent scientific literature (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies). We searched papers published between March 2009 (end of the initial search) and December 2019 in five databases using specific search strategies. We identified other publications through citation tracking and contacting authors of previous related studies. Reviewers independently selected relevant studies based on prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. We extracted information using a pre-established grid.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 7872 publications from the main search strategy. Ultimately, thirty-one distinct new studies met the inclusion criteria, whereas seventeen studies were included in the previous systematic review. PPI is realized through two main strategies: (i) patients and public members participate directly in decision-making processes (participation) and (ii) patients or public perspectives are solicited to inform decisions (consultation or indirect participation). This review synthesizes the barriers and facilitators to PPI in HTA, and a framework to assess its impact is proposed.

CONCLUSION

The number of studies on patients or public involvement in HTA has dramatically increased in recent years. Findings from this updated systematic review show that PPI is done mostly through consultation and that direct involvement is less frequent. Several barriers to PPI in HTA exist, notably the lack of information to patients and public about HTA and the lack of guidance and policies to support PPI in HTA.

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.

Defining the role of the public in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and HTA-informed decision-making processes

Objectives

The terminology used to describe community participation in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is contested and frequently confusing. The terms patients, consumers, public, lay members, customers, users, citizens, and others have been variously used, sometimes interchangeably. Clarity in the use of terms and goals for including the different groups is needed to mitigate existing inconsistencies in the application of patient and public involvement (PPI) across HTA processes around the world.

Methods

We drew from a range of literature sources in order to conceptualize (i) an operational definition for the “public” and other stakeholders in the context of HTA and (ii) possible goals for their involvement. Draft definitions were tested and refined in an iterative consensus-building process with stakeholders from around the world.

Results

The goals, terminology, interests, and roles for PPI in HTA processes were clarified. The research provides rationales for why the role of the public should be distinguished from that of patients, their families, and caregivers. A definition for the public in the context of HTA was developed: A community member who holds the public interest and has no commercial, personal, or professional interest in the HTA process

Conclusions

There are two distinct aspects to the interests held by the public which should be explicitly included in the HTA process: the first lies in ensuring democratic accountability and the second in recognising the importance of including public values in decision making.