What does meaningful look like? A qualitative study of patient engagement at the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review: perspectives of reviewers and payers

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 72-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Rozmovits ◽  
Helen Mai ◽  
Alexandra Chambers ◽  
Kelvin Chan
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Patient Engagement ◽  
Patient Advocacy ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Advocacy Groups ◽  
Oncology Drug ◽  
Patient Advocacy Groups ◽  
Drug Review

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.

Health technology assessment use and dissemination by patient and consumer groups: Why and how?

2008 ◽  
Vol 24 (04) ◽  
pp. 473-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Fattal ◽  
Pascale Lehoux
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Transfer ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Advocacy Groups ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
Semistructured Interviews ◽  
Consumer Organizations ◽  
Controversial Technologies

Objectives:Although increasing effort is being devoted to developing strategies to increase knowledge transfer and the uptake of health technology assessment (HTA) by various stakeholders, very little is known about the utilization and dissemination of HTA findings by patient and consumer organizations. The goal of this study is to understand how and why patient and consumer organizations use HTA findings within their organizations, and what factors influence how and when they communicate their findings to members or other organizations.Methods:We examined the use and dissemination of four controversial HTA reports by sixteen patient and consumer organizations in Ontario and Quebec. We gathered data from semistructured interviews conducted between December 2006 and April 2007.Results:Although HTA findings are often used by the patient and consumer organizations, key differences were observed in exactly how the four HTA reports were used. Three types of use (instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic) are reported and illustrated. We highlight the importance of the organization's mission and knowledge base in explaining the types of use observed.Conclusions:We contend that the use and dissemination of HTA reports by specific groups could help in widening the debate around controversial health technologies. The implications and opportunities for HTA agencies relate to the following: (i) identification of “lay” organizations that could help in disseminating results; (ii) acknowledgement of a “lay” audience for HTA findings; (iii) strategic inclusion of advocacy groups during the assessment process for highly controversial technologies; and (iv) contribution of these organizations to the push efforts of knowledge transfer.

scholarly journals Estimating an EQ-5D-3L Value Set for Romania Using Time Trade-Off

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (14) ◽  
pp. 7415
Author(s):  
Marian Sorin Paveliu ◽  
Elena Olariu ◽  
Raluca Caplescu ◽  
Yemi Oluboyede ◽  
Ileana-Gabriela Niculescu-Aron ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Computer Assisted ◽  
Health State ◽  
Health States ◽  
Value Set ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
Related Quality

Objective: To provide health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data to support health technology assessment (HTA) and reimbursement decisions in Romania, by developing a country-specific value set for the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire. Methods: We used the cTTO method to elicit health state values using a computer-assisted personal interviewing approach. Interviews were standardized following the most recent version of the EQ-VT protocol developed by the EuroQoL Foundation. Thirty EQ-5D-3L health states were randomly assigned to respondents in blocks of three. Econometric modeling was used to estimate values for all 243 states described by the EQ-5D-3L. Results: Data from 1556 non-institutionalized adults aged 18 years and older, selected from a national representative sample, were used to build the value set. All tested models were logically consistent; the final model chosen to generate the value set was an interval regression model. The predicted EQ-5D-3L values ranged from 0.969 to 0.399, and the relative importance of EQ-5D-3L dimensions was in the following order: mobility, pain/discomfort, self-care, anxiety/depression, and usual activities. Conclusions: These results can support reimbursement decisions and allow regional cross-country comparisons between health technologies. This study lays a stepping stone in the development of a health technology assessment process more driven by locally relevant data in Romania.

VP165 Landscape Assessment: Patient Engagement In Health Technology Assessment

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 224-225
Author(s):  
Elisabeth Oehrlein ◽  
Jason Harris ◽  
Nicole Labkoff ◽  
Eleanor Perfetto ◽  
Manal Ziadeh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Patient Engagement ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Web Search ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Public Consultation ◽  
Patient Questionnaire ◽  
Draft Guidance ◽  
Stakeholder Consultation

INTRODUCTION:Understanding the current landscape of patient engagement across value decision-making bodies internationally is a critical first step toward improving the patient centricity of Health Technology Assessment (HTA). This study assessed: (i) Terms and definitions used; (ii) Patient engagement opportunities; (iii) Evidence of patient engagement.METHODS:A sample of country-specific HTA's (HTA; n = 6), professional organizations (PO; n = 4), and collaborations/independent organizations (CO; n = 3) was selected for representativeness. Information was gathered through: (i) targeted web search and (ii) emailing organizations directly. Definitions, HTA methods documents, and the three most recent evaluations were identified, abstracted, and compared. Data were collected between September-October 2016.RESULTS:Numerous terms are used to describe patient engagement: patient input (HTA = 1, PO = 1), patient-group submitted information (HTA = 1), cooperation with patients/users (HTA = 1), public consultation (HTA = 1), patient perspectives (HTA = 1, PO = 1), involvement of people affected (HTA = 1), patient involvement (HTA = 2), patient and public involvement (HTA = 1), lay involvement (HTA = 1), inclusion of patient representative (PO = 3), patient reports (PO = 1), patient preference (PO = 2), public consultation (CO = 1), stakeholder consultation (CO = 1), open input (CO = 1), stakeholder engagement (CO = 1), and patient participation (CO = 1). Opportunities for patient engagement were described as: patient questionnaire (HTA = 2); comment period (HTA = 1; CO = 1); committee participation (HTA = 3; PO = 3); propose topics (HTA = 1); draft guidance (HTA = 1); general stakeholder forum (CO = 1). While organizations outline opportunities for patient engagement, not all organizations have clear evidence the practices are used or have impact. Recent evaluations demonstrate clear evidence of engagement (HTA = 2); Unclear or mixed evidence (HTA = 1; PO = 1; CO = 2); No evidence (HTA = 3; PO = 3; CO = 1).CONCLUSIONS:There is substantial heterogeneity in the terms used to describe patient engagement activities across organizations. While a variety of opportunities for patient engagement are described, lack of clear evidence to how patient engagement practices are consistently used may contribute to the perception that engagement by HTAs.

VP47 Health Technology Assessment Of Intensive Care Ventilators For Pediatric Patients

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 168-169
Author(s):  
Francesco Faggiano ◽  
Martina Andellini ◽  
Federico Nocchi ◽  
Carlo Capussotto ◽  
Francesca Sabusco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Context Analysis ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy

INTRODUCTION:The purpose of the study was to evaluate different type and manufacturers of intensive care ventilators in order to support the healthcare decision-making process about the choice to adopt the best available technology for ventilation of pediatric patient in intensive care units at Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital.METHODS:The technology assessment process was developed by using a new methodology, the Decision-oriented Health Technology Assessment (HTA) (DoHTA), a new implementation of the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) CoreModel, integrating the Analytic Hierarchy Process (1). A literature review was carried out to gather evidence on safety and overall effectiveness of different kind of intensive care ventilators, with several ventilation modalities and strategies. The synthesis of scientific evidence, and results of the specific context analysis resulted in the definition of components of the decisional hierarchy structure, consisting in detailed characteristics of the technology's performances covering the aspects on feasibility, safety, efficacy, costs, and organizational and technical characteristics of the technology. A subgroup of these indicators has been included in a checklist form for the evaluation of different type and manufacturers of intensive care ventilators, each of which was tested in three independent runs performed in three different departments. In addition, an economic evaluation was also carried out.RESULTS:Preliminary DoHTA results showed that the domains with the highest impacts within the evaluation are safety and clinical effectiveness (34.8 percent and 25.7 percent, respectively) followed by organizational aspects, technical characteristics of technology and costs and economic evaluation. The final objective is to define the alternatives’ ranking through a comparison between alternative technologies’ performances.CONCLUSIONS:The technology assessment project allowed to identify strengths and limits of the most recent intensive care ventilator’ models in the specific contexts of use by involving all health professionals interested, and eventually identify the best option for the hospital.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document