scholarly journals PNS377 BARRIERS AND ENABLERS TO PATIENT ENGAGEMENT IN THE HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT PROCESS: AN IRISH PERSPECTIVE

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. S828-S829
Author(s):  
K. Hayes ◽  
M. Hernon ◽  
B. Dooley
2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 72-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Rozmovits ◽  
Helen Mai ◽  
Alexandra Chambers ◽  
Kelvin Chan

Objectives While there is wide support for patient engagement in health technology assessment, determining what constitutes meaningful (as opposed to tokenistic) engagement is complex. This paper explores reviewer and payer perceptions of what constitutes meaningful patient engagement in the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review process. Methods Qualitative interview study comprising 24 semi-structured telephone interviews. A qualitative descriptive approach, employing the technique of constant comparison, was used to produce a thematic analysis. Results Submissions from patient advocacy groups were seen as meaningful when they provided information unavailable from other sources. This included information not collected in clinical trials, information relevant to clinical trade-offs and information about aspects of lived experience such as geographic differences and patient and carer priorities. In contrast, patient submissions that relied on emotional appeals or lacked transparency about their own methods were seen as detracting from the meaningfulness of patient engagement by conflating health technology assessment with other functions of patient advocacy groups such as fundraising or public awareness campaigns, and by failing to provide credible information relevant to deliberations. Conclusions This study suggests that misalignment of stakeholder expectations remains an issue even for a well-regarded health technology assessment process that has promoted patient engagement since its inception. Support for the technical capacity of patient groups to participate in health technology assessment is necessary but not sufficient to address this issue fully. There is a fundamental tension between the evidence-based nature of health technology assessment and the experientially oriented culture of patient advocacy. Divergent notions of what constitutes evidence and how it should be used must also be addressed.


2013 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 466-466
Author(s):  
J. Abelson ◽  
Y. Bombard ◽  
F. Gauvin ◽  
D. Simeonov ◽  
S. Boesveld

In the original publication of ‘Assessing the Impacts of Citizen Deliberations on the Health Technology Process’ the title was published incorrectly. The correct title should be: Assessing the Impacts of Citizen Deliberations on the Health Technology Assessment Process. The publisher regrets this error.


2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (S1) ◽  
pp. 10-11
Author(s):  
Sarah Khalid Khan ◽  
Sonia Garcia Gonzalez Moral ◽  
Dapo Ogunbayo ◽  
Dawn Craig

IntroductionThe National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Innovation Observatory (NIHRIO) is the national Horizon Scanning (HS) organization in England, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is its key health technology assessment (HTA) stakeholder. NIHRIO has a remit to notify NICE of innovative technologies with a time horizon of three years prior to regulatory approval in the European Union (EU)/United Kingdom (UK). The notification process produces an initial ‘filtration form’ followed by a ‘technology briefing’ produced 17–20 months prior to licence for those technologies that NICE will consider for appraisal. Since April 2017, NIHRIO has produced ~400 technology briefings. We present an analysis of how this has fed into the NICE HTA process so far.MethodsThe analysis mapped NIHRIO's technology briefings (April 2017 – June 2020) with relevant NICE technology appraisal/highly specialized technologies (TA/HST) guidance during the time period. The analysis followed the timeline of technologies from identification during the horizon scanning process to filtration to briefing submission to NICE and entering the TA/HST process to outcome/recommendation given by NICE.ResultsUntil June 2020, 496 technology briefings entered the NICE TA/HST scoping process. Forty per cent are in progress, four per cent have had a TA/HST recommendation and three per cent that entered the NICE TA/HST scoping process did not complete it. On average it took less time from briefing submission to NICE recommendation for cancer indications. The time from discovery to NICE recommendation ranged from 115 months to 22 months.ConclusionsHS for TA/HST is a lengthy process from identification to final recommendation and there is considerable variation in time duration from identification to briefing submission to NICE recommendation. Average time taken from briefing submission to NICE recommendation is shorter for cancer indications and repurposed medicines. A full TA/HST may not be recommended for all technology briefings, rather they may update existing guidance or find different routes of evaluation. Technologies that enter the TA/HST scoping process might be terminated, suspended or discontinued for several reasons which may include lack of company engagement, change in development or regulatory plans by the company. Timely notification is key in achieving TA/HST recommendation at the time of market authorization but not the only influencing factor.


2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (7) ◽  
pp. 591-600
Author(s):  
Antonio Olry de Labry Lima ◽  
Jaime Espín Balbino ◽  
Alexandre Lemgruber ◽  
Araceli Caro Martínez ◽  
Leticia García-Mochón ◽  
...  

2005 ◽  
Vol 8 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 13-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Sweet ◽  
Celynda G Tadlock ◽  
William Waugh ◽  
Andrea Hess ◽  
Ann Nguyen

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document