scholarly journals Preferences for engagement in health technology assessment decision-making: a nominal group technique with members of the public

BMJ Open ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. e010265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sally Wortley ◽  
Allison Tong ◽  
Kirsten Howard
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Nominal Group Technique ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Nominal Group ◽  
The Public ◽  
Group Technique

Den Nutzen von Palliativversorgung bewerten – Was muss aus Patienten-, Angehörigen- und Versorgersicht beachtet werden?

2019 ◽  
Vol 82 (02) ◽  
pp. 172-179
Author(s):  
Kati Mozygemba ◽  
Anne Dehlfing ◽  
Karen Hentschel ◽  
Imke Schilling ◽  
Ansgar Gerhardus
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Nominal Group Technique ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Nominal Group ◽  
Integrated Health ◽  
Frühe Integration ◽  
Group Technique

Zusammenfassung Hintergrund Komplexe Interventionen wie die Palliativversorgung (PV) stellen besondere Ansprüche an die Evaluation. Methodenleitfäden wie die des Projektes Integrated Health Technology Assessment for Evaluating Complex Technologies (INTEGRATE-HTA) helfen, diesen gerecht zu werden. Letztere wurden am Beispiel von PV in 7 europäischen Ländern entwickelt. Ziel Ziel der vorliegenden Studie war es, wichtige Aspekte für die Nutzenbewertung von PV aus Sicht von Patienten, Angehörigen und (professionell) Versorgenden in Deutschland zu identifizieren. Methoden Unter Anwendung der strukturierten Konsensfindung der Improved Nominal Group Technique führten wir je eine Fokusgruppe mit Angehörigen und mit in der PV tätigen Versorgern durch. Patienten befragten wir in 4 offenen Leitfadeninterviews. Die Analyse erfolgte unter Anwendung des offenen Kodierens. Ergebnisse Die Ergebnisse wurden kommunikativ validiert. Wir identifizierten die Bestimmung und Legitimität des Nutzenbegriffs, das Verständnis von PV, den patientenzentrierten und ganzheitlichen Ansatz, den Zugang zu PV, die Kontinuität und Flexibilität der Versorgung, die Ausbildung von Palliativkräften und die Multiprofessionalität als wichtige Nutzenaspekte. SchlussfolgerungDeutlich wird, dass ein Aufbrechen der Intervention in weniger komplexe Teile PV nicht adäquat erfasst. Die frühe Integration unterschiedlicher Stakeholder hilft wichtige Nutzenaspekte zu identifizieren, die so bereits in die Entwicklung von Bewertungsinstrumenten einfließen können.

scholarly journals From idealistic rookies to a regional leader: The history of health technology assessment in Poland

2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (S1) ◽  
pp. 156-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafał Niżankowski ◽  
Norbert Wilk
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
The Public ◽  
History Of ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Public Payer

In 1989, Poland started to slowly release itself not only from the burden of a half-century of communist indoctrination and soviet exploitation, but also from the consequences of the Semashko model of healthcare organization: low doctors' salaries, primary care based on multispecialty groups, overdeveloped hospital infrastructure, and limited access to sophisticated interventions overcome by patients' unofficial payments.A few years after the 1998 workshop on health technology assessment (HTA) in Budapest, the first HTA reports were elaborated in the National Center for Quality Assessment in Health Care, which could mark the beginning of HTA in Poland. Several individuals and organizations have been involved in developing HTA, both from noncommercial and commercial standpoints.A goal to establish a national HTA agency appeared among the priorities of the Polish Ministry of Health in 2004 and was realized a year later. The Agency for HTA in Poland published guidelines on HTA and established a sound and transparent two-step (assessment-appraisal) process for preparing recommendations on public financing of both drugs and nondrug technologies. The recommendations of the Agency's Consultative Council were warmly welcomed by the public payer. However, the recent major restructuring of the Agency and new drug reimbursement decisions aroused doubts as to keeping transparency of the decision-making processes.

Community views and perspectives on public engagement in health technology assessment decision making

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sally Wortley ◽  
Allison Tong ◽  
Kirsten Howard
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Public Participation ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
Public Engagement ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
The Public

Objectives The aim of the present study was to describe community views and perspectives on public engagement processes in Australian health technology assessment (HTA) decision making. Methods Six focus groups were held in Sydney (NSW, Australia) as part of a broad program of work on public engagement and HTA. Eligible participants were aged ≥18 years and spoke English. Participants were asked about their views and perspectives of public engagement in the HTA decision-making process, with responses analysed using a public participation framework. Results Fifty-eight participants aged 19–71 years attended the focus groups. Responses from the public indicated that they wanted public engagement in HTA to include a diversity of individuals, be independent and transparent, involve individuals early in the process and ensure that public input is meaningful and useful to the process. This was consistent with the public participation framework. Perceived shortcomings of the current public engagement process were also identified, namely the lack of awareness of the HTA system in the general population and the need to acknowledge the role different groups of stakeholders or ‘publics’ can have in the process. Conclusions The public do see a role for themselves in the HTA decision-making process. This is distinct to the involvement of patients and carers. It is important that any future public engagement strategy in this field distinguishes between stakeholder groups and outline approaches that will involve members of the public in the decision-making process, especially if public expectations of involvement in healthcare decision-making continue to increase. What is known about this topic? The views and perspectives of patients and consumers are important in the HTA decision-making process. There is a move to involve the broader community, particularly as decisions become increasingly complex and resources more scarce. What does this paper add? It not been known to what extent, or at what points, the community would like to be engaged with the HTA decision-making process. The present study adds to the evidence base on this topic by identifying features of engagement that may be important in determining the extent of wider public involvement. It is clear that the community expects the system to be transparent, for patients to be involved early in specific processes and the wider community to be able to contribute to the broader vision of the healthcare system. What are the implications for practitioners? A formalised strategy is needed to include the public voice into health technology decisions. With the current level of reform in the healthcare sector and the focus on creating a sustainable healthcare system, there is a real opportunity to implement an approach that not only informs patients and the community of the challenges, but includes and incorporates their views into these decisions. This will assist in developing and adapting policy that is relevant and meets the needs of the population.

OP114 The Public's Role In Understanding The Value Of Health Technologies

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 43-44
Author(s):  
Tania Stafinski ◽  
Jackie Street ◽  
Devidas Menon
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Informed Decision ◽  
Informed Decision Making ◽  
The Public ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Definition Of

Introduction:Increasingly, health technology assessment (HTA) organizations have instituted mechanisms for involving patients in assessment and review processes. The reasons are obvious—to understand the “patient experience” with a disease and to ensure that patient perspectives are considered during deliberations about the value of new treatments. More recently there have been efforts to engage the public in HTAs and HTA-informed decision-making processes. However, the goals of these efforts have not been well articulated. This may be attributable to the lack of a shared definition of “the public”. The objective of this study was to develop a common understanding of the term “the public” within the context of HTA.Methods:The following were conducted: a survey of HTA organizations; a systematic review; consultation with Health Technology Assessment international's Special Interest Group on Patient and Citizen Involvement; and a workshop comprising representatives from patient organizations, industry, and HTA bodies in Canada.Results:In many HTA processes, the terms “public” and “patients” are synonymous. Definitions found in scholarly articles vary and depend on the rationale for involving the public in a particular issue. Through consultations it became clear that, in the context of HTA, the definition depends on understanding what is missing from current deliberations around the value of new health technologies. There was consensus among workshop participants that: (i) “patients” and “the public” are not the same; (ii) the role of the public may be to ensure societal values are reflected in HTAs and HTA-informed decision-making processes (e.g. serving an audit function); and (iii) a legitimate definition of “the public” could be: “A non-aligned community member with no commercial or professional interest in the HTA process who is not a patient or member of a stakeholder group”.Conclusions:Consensus on the use of the terms “patient” and “public” will support rigorous, evidence-based public and patient engagement in HTA. The proposed definition indicates a way forward in this debate.

OP92 Addressing Challenges Of Implementing A Health Technology Assessment Framework In South Africa

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 41-42
Author(s):  
Jani Mueller
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Healthcare Sector ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
Health Technologies

INTRODUCTION:South Africa is in the process of providing comprehensive health insurance to all its citizens, thus paving the pathway for Health Technology Assessment (HTA) to play a significant role in provision of safe and effective healthcare. The National Department of Health (DoH) has a published framework and Health Technology Act and strategies since the 1990s to improve health outcomes, and service and delivery of care. The purpose of this study is to explore challenges faced in the implementation of the framework and policies.METHODS:The study will be based on review and analysis of health technology policies and legislations introduced in South Africa since the 1990s. These documents are available from the DoH archive. The review from this grey literature was supplemented by information collected from a self-completion questionnaire, which was distributed to key stakeholders. Respondents were identified by direct contact with ministries of health and professional bodies, and included health professionals from the public and private healthcare sector, for example, practitioners, experts from hospitals, and industry representatives. The questionnaire addressed issues pertaining to decision making regarding health service delivery and the status of HTA in the country.RESULTS:The framework lays out the strategy to facilitate appropriate utilization of health technologies and includes among others, an HTA section. Fragmented use of HTA or parts thereof has been observed in the public and private health care sector. Furthermore, the respondents pointed out that decisions on health technology can be political, institutional or professionally driven whereas they all agreed that a formal and institutional implementation of HTA would improve healthcare service.CONCLUSIONS:The goal to achieve universal health care provides an excellent window of opportunity for formal use of HTA in policy- and decision-making. However, (i) the inadequate number of trained professionals and education and training opportunities (ii) lack of awareness and understanding of the principles of HTA and its impact on the improvement of health care are among the many challenges faced by the system. It has also been observed that national and regional champions can act as change agents and would have a snowball effect.

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 Health technology assessment in sub-Saharan Africa: a descriptive analysis and narrative synthesis

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha Hollingworth ◽  
Ama Pokuaa Fenny ◽  
Su-Yeon Yu ◽  
Francis Ruiz ◽  
Kalipso Chalkidou
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Technical Assistance ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Sub Saharan Africa ◽  
Main Theme ◽  
Narrative Synthesis ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Sub Saharan

Abstract Background Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) are moving towards universal health coverage. The process of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) can support decisions relating to benefit package design and service coverage. HTA involves institutional cooperation with agreed methods and procedural standards. We systematically reviewed the literature on policies and capacity building to support HTA institutionalisation in SSA. Methods We systematically reviewed the literature by searching major databases (PubMed, Embase, etc.) until June 2019 using terms considering three aspects: HTA; health policy, decision making; and SSA. We quantitatively extracted and descriptively analysed content and conducted a narrative synthesis eliciting themes from the selected literature, which varied in study type and apporach. Results Half of the 49 papers identified were primary research studies and mostly qualitative. Five countries were represented in six of ten studies; South Africa, Ghana, Uganda, Cameroon, and Ethiopia. Half of first authors were from SSA. Most informants were policy makers. Five themes emerged: (1) use of HTA; (2) decision-making in HTA; (3) values and criteria for setting priority areas in HTA; (4) involving stakeholders in HTA; and (5) specific examples of progress in HTA in SSA. The first one was the main theme where there was little use of evidence and research in making policy. The awareness of HTA and economic evaluation was low, with inadequate expertise and a lack of local data and tools. Conclusions Despite growing interest in HTA in SSA countries, awareness remains low and HTA-related activities are uncoordinated and often disconnected from policy. Further training and skills development are needed, firmly linked to a strategy focusing on strengthening within-country partnerships, particularly among researchers and policy makers. The international community has an important role here by supporting policy- relevant technical assistance, highlighting that sustainable financing demands evidence-based processes for effective resource allocation, and catalysing knowledge-sharing opportunities among countries facing similar challenges.

scholarly journals Determinants of Managed Entry Agreements in the context of Health Technology Assessment: a comparative analysis of oncology therapies in four countries

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olina Efthymiadou ◽  
Panos Kanavos
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Best Practice Guidelines ◽  
Chi Squared ◽  
Decision Making Factors ◽  
Managed Entry Agreements

Abstract Background Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) are increasingly used to address uncertainties arising in the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) process due to immature evidence of new, high-cost medicines on their real-world performance and cost-effectiveness. The literature remains inconclusive on the HTA decision-making factors that influence the utilization of MEAs. We aimed to assess if the uptake of MEAs differs between countries and if so, to understand which HTA decision-making criteria play a role in determining such differences. Methods All oncology medicines approved since 2009 in Australia, England, Scotland, and Sweden were studied. Four categories of variables were collected from publicly available HTA reports of the above drugs: (i) Social Value Judgments (SVJs), (ii) Clinical/Economic evidence submitted, (iii) Interpretation of this evidence, and (iv) Funding decision. Conditional/restricted decisions were coded as Listed With Conditions (LWC) other than an MEA or LWC including an MEA (LWCMEA). Cohen's κ-scores measured the inter-rater agreement of countries on their LWCMEA outcomes and Pearson's chi-squared tests explored the association between HTA variables and LWCMEA outcomes. Results A total of 74 drug-indication pairs were found resulting in n = 296 observations; 8 percent (n = 23) were LWC and 55 percent (n = 163) were LWCMEA. A poor-to-moderate agreement existed between countries (−.29 < κ < .33) on LWCMEA decisions. Cross-country differences within the LWCMEA sample were partly driven by economic uncertainties and largely driven by SVJs considered across agencies. Conclusions A set of HTA-related variables driving the uptake of MEAs across countries was identified. These findings can be useful in future research aimed at informing country-specific, “best-practice” guidelines for successful MEA implementation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document