OP35 Involving Members Of The Public In A National Screening Programme Health Technology Assessment

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 16-16
Author(s):  
Emma Cockcroft ◽  
Linda Long ◽  
Christopher Hyde ◽  
Kristin Liabo
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Resource Constraints ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Consultation Process ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Meetings

INTRODUCTION:Involving members of the public in the development of Health Technology Assessments (HTAs) has scientific and public value (1) but the most common form of involvement in HTA remains collection of people's views in the form of data (2). Involving members of the public in shaping the research is rare due to perceived time or resource constraints (3). Our research aimed to; (i) develop tailored meeting formats for public involvement in a lung cancer screening HTA, (ii) capture views on lung cancer screening using a community drop in format (iii) explore how different groups of public contributors, with various prior experience of involvement, participated in the HTA consultation process.METHODS:The involvement included three separate public meetings and a drop-in session at a community centre. Meeting formats were specifically tailored to meet the needs of the lung cancer screening HTA while drawing on previous patient and public involvement (PPI) work in relevant disciplines. All meetings were audio recorded and observed using a structured form. This data is currently being analysed using a combination of inductive and thematic analysis.RESULTS:The qualitative research data on PPI processes was collected in November 2016. The paper will present results from our full analysis. At present, we note that while limited time was available to explain HTA to participants, this did not hamper the discussions’ relevance to the HTA work. Participants shared personal stories irrespective of whether they knew each other from before. People drew on own and others’ experiences when discussing outcomes of importance to this HTA.CONCLUSIONS:Prior involvement in research or specific research methods training may not be necessary for public involvement in HTA. This has implications for involving diverse or “hard to reach” groups, without high levels of associated cost.

PP124 Smart Capability Building For Effective Patient Involvement

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (S1) ◽  
pp. 59-60
Author(s):  
Claire Davis ◽  
Sophie Hughes ◽  
Susan Myles
Keyword(s):  
Best Practice ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
The Public ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
Capability Building ◽  
Working Together ◽  
Strategy Building

IntroductionA new Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agency, Health Technology Wales (HTW), has been established to consider the identification, appraisal, and adoption of non-medicine health technologies. This includes, for example, medical devices, surgical procedures and diagnostics. HTW recognizes the importance of effective patient and public involvement (PPI) and is building smart capabilities.MethodsHTW consulted with external organizations to identify the first steps toward effective PPI. Public partners were recruited as a priority before working together on a PPI strategy. Building smart capabilities is key to establishing effective PPI and future-proofing. HTW established a PPI Standing Group to inform HTW throughout its work, including the development of processes and procedures.ResultsKnowledge and resources have been shared and future collaborations identified, including events to encourage new topics from patients and the public. The HTW PPI lead has become a member of key PPI groups, locally and internationally. HTW has recruited public partners who are actively contributing as full members of the Assessment Group and the Appraisal Panel; two members on each Committee. The PPI Standing Group has been established. They have provided advice and co-produced PPI tools for piloting.ConclusionsThe PPI Standing Group concluded that PPI methods and approaches should be tailored for each project based on best practice, and should be piloted to allow them to evolve based on impact evaluation. A PPI strategy or framework would be more useful at a later stage. HTW is committed to identifying and following best practice. Future-proofing and building smart capability will be key to ensuring that HTW develops effective PPI that can be dynamic and responsive to the evolving PPI and HTA landscapes.

OP110 Survey Of Health Technology Assessment Evaluation Strategies For Patient And Public Involvement

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 51-52
Author(s):  
Laura Weeks ◽  
Julie Polisena ◽  
Anna Scott ◽  
Anke-Peggy Holtorf ◽  
Sophie Staniszewska ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Participant Satisfaction ◽  
The Public ◽  
Evaluation Strategies ◽  
And Training ◽  
Process Evaluations

INTRODUCTION:Although there is increased awareness of patient and public involvement (PPI) among Health Technology Assessment (HTA) organizations, evaluations of PPI initiatives are relatively scarce. Our objective as members of HTAi's Patient and Citizen Involvement Group (PCIG) was to advance understanding of the range of evaluation strategies adopted by HTA organizations and their potential usefulness.METHODS:In March 2016, a survey was sent to HTA organizations through the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) and contacts of members of HTAi's PCIG. Respondents were asked about their organizational structure; how patients and members of the public are involved; whether and how PPI initiatives have been evaluated, and, if so, which facilitators and challenges to evaluation were found and how results were used and disseminated.RESULTS:Fifteen programs from twelve countries responded that involved patient (14/15) and members of the public (10/15) in HTA activities. Seven programs evaluated their PPI activities, including participant satisfaction (5/7), process evaluations (5/7) and impact evaluations (4/7). Evaluation results were used to improve PPI activities, identify education and training needs, and direct strategic priorities. Facilitators and challenges revolved around the need for stakeholder buy-in, sufficient resources, senior leadership, and including patients in evaluations. Participants also provided suggestions based on their experiences for others embarking on this work, for example including patients and members of the public in the process.CONCLUSIONS:We identified a small but diverse set of HTA organizations internationally that are evaluating their PPI activities. Our results add to the limited literature by documenting a range of evaluation strategies that reflect the range of rationales and approaches to PPI in HTA. It will be important for HTA organizations to draw on formal evaluation theories and methods when planning future evaluations, and to also share their approaches and experiences with evaluation.

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

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 87-95
Author(s):  
Jackie Street ◽  
Tania Stafinski ◽  
Edilene Lopes ◽  
Devidas Menon
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Operational Definition ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
The Public ◽  
The World

ObjectivesThe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsThe 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 processConclusionsThere 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.

scholarly journals EVALUATION OF PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INITIATIVES IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: A SURVEY OF INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 715-723 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Weeks ◽  
Julie Polisena ◽  
Anna Mae Scott ◽  
Anke-Peggy Holtorf ◽  
Sophie Staniszewska ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Participant Satisfaction ◽  
The Public ◽  
International Agencies ◽  
Evaluation Strategies ◽  
And Training

Objectives: Although there is increased awareness of patient and public involvement (PPI) among health technology assessment (HTA) organizations, evaluations of PPI initiatives are relatively scarce. Our objective as members of Health Technology Assessment International's (HTAi's) Patient and Citizen Involvement Group (PCIG) was to advance understanding of the range of evaluation strategies adopted by HTA organizations and their potential usefulness.Methods: In March 2016, a survey was sent to fifty-four HTA organizations through the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) and contacts of members of HTAi's PCIG. Respondents were asked about their organizational structure; how patients and members of the public are involved; whether and how PPI initiatives have been evaluated, and, if so, which facilitators and challenges to evaluation were found and how results were used and disseminated.Results: Fifteen (n = 15) programs from twelve countries responded (response rate 27.8 percent) that involved patients (14/15) and members of the public (10/15) in HTA activities. Seven programs evaluated their PPI activities, including participant satisfaction (5/7), process (5/7) and impact evaluations (4/7). Evaluation results were used to improve PPI activities, identify education and training needs, and direct strategic priorities. Facilitators and challenges revolved around the need for stakeholder buy-in, sufficient resources, senior leadership, and including patients in evaluations.Conclusions: A small but diverse set of HTA organizations evaluate their PPI activities using a range of strategies that reflect the range of rationales and approaches to PPI in HTA. It will be important for HTA organizations to draw on evaluation theories and methods.

PP115 Patient And Public Involvement In Health Technology Assessment: Update Of A Systematic Review

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 126-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mylène Tantchou ◽  
Marie-Pierre Gagnon ◽  
Thomas Poder
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Previous Systematic Review ◽  
The Public ◽  
Patient And Public Engagement

INTRODUCTION:There is a general consensus on the need to involve patients and the public in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) but questions remain about the best strategies for involving them into HTA structures and activities. The aim of this study was to update a systematic review (published in 2011) on patient and public engagement in HTA.METHODS:We searched papers published between January 2009 (end of the initial search) and November 2016 in eight databases and HTA journals using specific search strategies. We identified other publications through citation tracking, Internet search engines, HTA agencies websites, and discussion with experts in the field. Studies in English or French were included if they met the following criteria: (i) qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods study; (ii) describing patients or public involvement; and (iii) in the HTA field. We extracted information using a pre-established grid including: characteristics of studies, type of activities for involving patients or public, effects on decisions, and factors facilitating or limiting involvement.RESULTS:We identified a total of 4,762 new publications from the main search strategy. Among them, twenty-eight articles (reporting on twenty-three studies) met the inclusion criteria, whereas seventeen articles were included in the previous systematic review. Research designs are qualitative (18/23), quantitative (3/23) or mixed (2/23). Two main strategies for involving patients and public are generally described. The first is when public representatives participate directly in decision-making processes (participation) and the second is when patient or public input is sought to inform decisions (consultation or indirect participation).CONCLUSIONS:The number of studies on patient and public involvement in HTA has increased in recent years. Findings from this update are mainly consistent with those of the previous systematic review. However, studies are still needed to assess the effectiveness of different strategies for involving patients and the public in HTA.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document