scholarly journals Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design – Part II: A Practical Guide

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wija Oortwijn ◽  
Maarten Jansen ◽  
Rob Baltussen
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Exchange ◽  
Stakeholder Involvement ◽  
Health Benefit ◽  
Companion Paper ◽  
Benefit Package ◽  
Systematic Analysis ◽  
Package Design ◽  
Academic Knowledge ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Deliberative Processes

Background. Countries around the world are using health technology assessment (HTA) for health benefit package design. Evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) are a practical and stepwise approach to enhance legitimate health benefit package design based on deliberation between stakeholders to identify, reflect and learn about the meaning and importance of values, informed by evidence on these values. This paper reports on the development of practical guidance on EDPs, while the conceptual framework of EDPs is described in a companion paper. Methods. The first guide on EDPs (2019) is further developed based on academic knowledge exchange, surveying 27 HTA bodies and 66 experts around the globe, and the implementation of EDPs in several countries. We present the revised steps of EDPs and how selected HTA bodies (in Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Scotland, Thailand and the United Kingdom) organize key issues of legitimacy in their processes. This is based on a review of literature via PubMed and HTA bodies’ websites. Results. HTA bodies around the globe vary considerable in how they address legitimacy (stakeholder involvement ideally through participation with deliberation; evidence-informed evaluation; transparency; and appeal) in their processes. While there is increased attention for improving legitimacy in decision-making processes, we found that the selected HTA bodies are still lacking or just starting to develop activities in this area. We provide recommendations on how HTA bodies can improve on this. Conclusion. The design and implementation of EDPs is in its infancy. We call for a systematic analysis of experiences of a variety of countries, from which general principles on EDPs might subsequently be inferred.

scholarly journals Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Legitimate Health Benefit Package Design − Part I: Conceptual Framework

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rob Baltussen ◽  
Maarten Jansen ◽  
Wija Oortwijn
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Health Benefit ◽  
General Concept ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Benefit Package ◽  
Package Design ◽  
Academic Knowledge ◽  
The World ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Deliberative Processes

Background. Countries around the world are increasingly rethinking the design of their health benefit packages to achieve universal health coverage and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies support governments in these decisions. Coverage decision-making is an intrinsically complex and value-laden political process, but value frameworks currently employed by HTA bodies do not sufficiently account for this complex reality. Methods. Several years ago, evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) were developed to address this issue. An EDP is a practical and stepwise approach for HTA bodies to enhance legitimate health benefit package design based on deliberation between stakeholders to identify, reflect and learn about the meaning and importance of values, and to interpret available evidence on these values. We further developed the conceptual framework and initial 2019 guidance based on academic knowledge exchange, analysing practices of HTA bodies, surveying HTA bodies and experts around the globe, and implementation of EDPs in several countries around the world. Results. EDPs stem from the general concept of legitimacy, which is translated into four elements – stakeholder involvement ideally operationalised through stakeholder participation with deliberation; evidence-informed evaluation; transparency; and appeal. The 2021 practical guidance distinguishes six practical steps of a HTA process and provides recommendations on how these elements can be implemented in each of these steps. Conclusion. There is an increased attention for legitimacy, deliberative processes for HTA and health benefit package design, but the development of theories and methods for such processes remain behind. The added value of EDPs lies in the operationalisation of the general concept of legitimacy into practical guidance for HTA bodies.

scholarly journals Balancing health and financial protection in health benefit package design

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine T. Lofgren ◽  
David A. Watkins ◽  
Solomon T. Memirie ◽  
Joshua A. Salomon ◽  
Stéphane Verguet
Keyword(s):  
Health Benefit ◽  
Financial Protection ◽  
Benefit Package ◽  
Package Design

scholarly journals More than a method: trusting relationships, productive tensions, and two-way learning as mechanisms of authentic co-production

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah E. Knowles ◽  
Dawn Allen ◽  
Ailsa Donnelly ◽  
Jackie Flynn ◽  
Kay Gallacher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Ways Of Knowing ◽  
Knowledge Mobilisation ◽  
Academic Knowledge ◽  
Willingness To Change ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Hybrid Knowledge ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Field Notes ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract Background Knowledge mobilisation requires the effective elicitation and blending of different types of knowledge or ways of knowing, to produce hybrid knowledge outputs that are valuable to both knowledge producers (researchers) and knowledge users (health care stakeholders). Patients and service users are a neglected user group, and there is a need for transparent reporting and critical review of methods used to co-produce knowledge with patients. This study aimed to explore the potential of participatory codesign methods as a mechanism of supporting knowledge sharing, and to evaluate this from the perspective of both researchers and patients. Methods A knowledge mobilisation research project using participatory codesign workshops to explore patient involvement in using health data to improve services. To evaluate involvement in the project, multiple qualitative data sources were collected throughout, including a survey informed by the Generic Learning Outcomes framework, an evaluation focus group, and field notes. Analysis was a collective dialogic reflection on project processes and impacts, including comparing and contrasting the key issues from the researcher and contributor perspectives. Results Authentic involvement was seen as the result of “space to talk” and “space to change”. "Space to talk" refers to creating space for shared dialogue, including space for tension and disagreement, and recognising contributor and researcher expertise as equally valuable to the discussion. ‘Space to change’ refers to space to adapt in response to contributor feedback. These were partly facilitated by the use of codesign methods which emphasise visual and iterative working, but contributors emphasised that relational openness was more crucial, and that this needed to apply to the study overall (specifically, how contributors were reimbursed as a demonstration of how their input was valued) to build trust, not just to processes within the workshops. Conclusions Specific methods used within involvement are only one component of effective involvement practice. The relationship between researcher and contributors, and particularly researcher willingness to change their approach in response to feedback, were considered most important by contributors. Productive tension was emphasised as a key mechanism in leading to genuinely hybrid outputs that combined contributor insight and experience with academic knowledge and understanding.

scholarly journals Using green infrastructure to stimulate discourse with and for planning practice: experiences with fuzzy concepts from a pan-European, a national and a local perspective

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rieke Hansen ◽  
Martina van Lierop ◽  
Werner Rolf ◽  
Damjana Gantar ◽  
Ina Šuklje Erjavec ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Green Infrastructure ◽  
Regional Cooperation ◽  
Knowledge Exchange ◽  
Stakeholder Involvement ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Planning Practice ◽  
Regional Project ◽  
Development Processes ◽  
Guidance Documents ◽  
Novel Concept

AbstractConcepts such as green infrastructure, nature-based solutions, and ecosystem services gained popularity in recent discourses on urban planning. Despite their recognition as innovative concepts, all of them share a degree of ambiguity. Fuzziness can be a weakness but also an opportunity to shape novel concepts together with the stakeholders that are supposed to implement them in the planning practice. The paper traces concept development processes of green infrastructure through transdisciplinary knowledge exchange in three different projects, a European and a national research project and a local city-regional project as part of an EU regional cooperation project. In all projects, the green infrastructure concept evolved in different stages. Stakeholder involvement during these stages span from consultation to co-creation. The cases reveal two different approaches: concepts that are developed “for planning practice” might be based on a plethora of insight via consultation, while those “with planning practice” foster co-creation and might result in high acceptance among the involved stakeholders. Depending on the purpose of the novel concept, each approach can be beneficial and result in practice-related and operational products, such as guidance documents or planning strategies. However, the cases also show that in any new context an exchange about fuzzy concepts is not only needed but also a chance to stimulate cooperation and joint understanding about urban challenges and how to address them.

scholarly journals The work programme of NERIS in post-accident recovery

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 221-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Schneider ◽  
S. Andronopoulos ◽  
J. Camps ◽  
T. Duranova ◽  
E. Gallego ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Response ◽  
Stakeholder Involvement ◽  
Fukushima Accident ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Response And Recovery ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Work Programme ◽  
Further Development

NERIS is the European platform on preparedness for nuclear and radiological emergency response and recovery. Created in 2010 with 57 organisations from 28 different countries, the objectives of the platform are to: improve the effectiveness and coherency of current approaches to preparedness; identify further development needs; improve ‘know how’ and technical expertise; and establish a forum for dialogue and methodological development. The NERIS Strategic Research Agenda is now structured with three main challenges: (i) radiological impact assessments during all phases of nuclear and radiological events; (ii) countermeasures and countermeasure strategies in emergency and recovery, decision support, and disaster informatics; and (iii) setting up a multi-faceted framework for preparedness for emergency response and recovery. The Fukushima accident has highlighted some key issues for further consideration in NERIS research activities, including: the importance of transparency of decision-making processes at local, regional, and national levels; the key role of access to environmental monitoring; the importance of dealing with uncertainties in assessment and management of the different phases of the accident; the use of modern social media in the exchange of information; the role of stakeholder involvement processes in both emergency and recovery situations; considerations of societal, ethical, and economic aspects; and the reinforcement of education and training for various actors. This paper emphasises the main issues at stake for NERIS for post-accident management.

At the heart of controversies

2019 ◽  
Vol 121 (12) ◽  
pp. 3151-3167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Virginie Amilien ◽  
Barbara Tocco ◽  
Paal Strandbakken
Keyword(s):  
Food Systems ◽  
Local Development ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Knowledge Exchange ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Hybrid Forums ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Deliberative Processes ◽  
New Generation ◽  
Experimental Use

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss and evaluate the role of hybrid forums as tools to address specific controversies related to sustainable practices in localized agro-food systems (LAFS). Design/methodology/approach In contrast with other conventional public engagement methods, such as citizen juries, consensus conferences, focus groups or deliberative processes, hybrid forums entail a more dynamic and democratic mechanism to reflect and act together, with the aim of constructing a common project around a defined challenge (Callon et al., 2001, 2009). They can offer an enriching and challenging methodological approach in the context of LAFS, especially in the discussion of controversial issues around food chain sustainability. The authors present here a new generation of hybrid forums: HF 2.0. Findings HF 2.0. represent both a methodological tool and a real experience of dialogic democracy, two interactive aspects which are closely interlinked and rest upon each other. The authors argue that the attractiveness of HF 2.0. is notable in at least two ways: first, they provide a solid democratic and reflective mechanism to stimulate effective dialogue and knowledge-exchange among different stakeholders; second, they contribute as an important methodological evidence-based tool, which can be used as a launching pad for shaping local action groups and community partnerships’ strategies aimed at fostering local development. Originality/value This paper attempts to provide a methodological discussion over the experimental use of HF 2.0. in the context of LAFS and assesses their effectiveness in the co-construction of knowledge. The authors explore their pragmatic validity in addressing controversies over local and sustainable seafood via empirical applications in Norway and the UK.

OP83 Value Assessment Framework: Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 38-38
Author(s):  
Marcia Tummers ◽  
Rob Baltussen ◽  
Maarten Jansen ◽  
Leon Bijlmakers ◽  
Janneke Grutters ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Stakeholder Involvement ◽  
Value Assessment ◽  
Assessment Framework ◽  
Accountability For Reasonableness ◽  
A Value ◽  
Public Scrutiny ◽  
The One ◽  
Deliberative Processes

INTRODUCTION:Priority setting in health care has been long recognized as an intrinsically complex and value-laden process. Yet, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies presently employ value assessment frameworks that are ill-fitted to capture the range and diversity of stakeholder values, and thereby risk to compromise the legitimacy of their recommendations. We propose ‘evidence-informed deliberative processes’ as an alternative framework with the aim to enhance this legitimacy.METHODS:The framework is based on an integration of two increasingly popular and complementary frameworks for priority setting: multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) and accountability for reasonableness (A4R), Evidence-informed deliberative processes are, on the one hand, based on early, continued stakeholder deliberation to learn about the importance of relevant social values. On the other hand, they are based on rational decision-making – through evidence-informed evaluation of the identified values.RESULTS:The framework has important implications for how HTA agencies should ideally organize their processes. Firstly, HTA agencies should take the responsibility to organize stakeholder involvement. Second, agencies are advised to integrate their assessment and appraisal phase, allowing for the timely collection of evidence on values that are considered relevant. Third, HTA agencies should subject their specification of decision-making criteria to public scrutiny. Fourth, agencies are advised to use a checklist of potentially relevant criteria, and to provide argumentation how each criterion affected the recommendation. Fifth, HTA agencies must publish their argumentation and install options for appeal.CONCLUSIONS:Adopting ‘evidence-informed deliberative processes’ as a value assessment framework could be an important step forward for HTA agencies to optimize the legitimacy of their priority setting decisions. Agencies can incorporate elements according to their needs and affordances.

scholarly journals Key issues in co-creation with stakeholders when research problems are complex

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 423-435 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriele Bammer
Keyword(s):  
International Association ◽  
Stakeholder Involvement ◽  
Research Programme ◽  
Extensive Literature ◽  
Multiple Stakeholders ◽  
Stakeholder Groups ◽  
Complex Problems ◽  
Research Problems ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
The Impact

The extensive literature on research co-creation is mostly based on problems being treated as clearly defined and solvable. What is the impact on co-creation when problems are complex, with the following characteristics: difficult to delimit, contested definitions, multiple uncertainties and unresolvable unknowns, constraints on what can be done, and no perfect solution? Co-creation on such problems requires a research mindset that appreciates that stakeholders have an essential role in making complexity evident and that limiting stakeholder involvement also limits the ability to understand and effectively act on complex problems. The Integration and Implementation Sciences (i2S) framework is introduced as a way to systematically take into account multiple stakeholders with multiple relevant inputs. In addition, one specific tool, the research-relevant modified International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) spectrum, is described as a way of exploring stakeholder engagement. For complex problems this modified spectrum can be used to describe different ways of including stakeholders, to reflect on appropriate forms of engagement, as well as to take into account both level of researcher control and different categories of stakeholder groups. A research programme examining the feasibility of prescribing pharmaceutical heroin as a treatment for heroin dependence stimulated thinking about co-creation on complex problems and is used as a practice example to illustrate the points covered.

Homeomeric Lines in Greek Mathematics

2010 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabio Acerbi
Keyword(s):  
Companion Paper ◽  
Future Issue ◽  
Property A ◽  
Straight Line ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Cosmological Debate ◽  
Greek Mathematics ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Cylindrical Helix

ArgumentThis article presents ancient documents on the subject of homeomeric lines. On the basis of such documents, the article reconstructs a definition of the notion as well as a proof of the result, which is left unproved in extant sources, that there are only three homeomeric lines: the straight line, the circumference, and the cylindrical helix. A point of particular historiographic interest is that homeomeric lines were the only class of lines defined directly as the extension of a mathematical property, a move that is unparalleled in Greek mathematics. The far-reaching connections between mathematical homeomery and key issues in the ancient cosmological debate are extensively discussed here. An analysis of its relevance as a foundational theme will be presented in a companion paper in a future issue of Science in Context.

scholarly journals Industry-specific CSR: analysis of 20 years of research

2016 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 250-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marina Dabic ◽  
Ana Colovic ◽  
Olivier Lamotte ◽  
Mollie Painter-Morland ◽  
Silvana Brozovic
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Social Responsibility ◽  
Social Responsibility ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Keyword Search ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Field Of Study ◽  
Systematic Analysis ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Corporate Social

Purpose The purpose of this study is to analyze the literature on industry-specific corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices. Design/methodology/approach Using a multiple-keyword search, the authors identified 302 articles reporting on such practices, published in 99 different academic journals between 1995 and 2014. These articles were analyzed to map the CSR literature, identify which industries have been under greater scrutiny and distinguish trends in the most researched industries. Findings The authors’ findings indicate that the CSR studies are very unevenly distributed and that the issues studied and the methods used vary widely across industries. The authors also map this field of study and propose suggestions on where research on industry-specific CSR should go in the future. Originality/value The first extensive, systematic analysis of the industry-specific CSR literature is provided. The current research adds value to the literature by highlighting the key issues investigated, as well as those that require further inquiry.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document