Literature DB >> 22004776

Choosing health technology assessment and systematic review topics: the development of priority-setting criteria for patients' and consumers' interests.

Hilda Bastian1, Fülöp Scheibler, Marco Knelangen, Beate Zschorlich, Mona Nasser, Andreas Waltering.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) was established in 2003 by the German parliament. Its legislative responsibilities are health technology assessment, mostly to support policy making and reimbursement decisions. It also has a mandate to serve patients' interests directly, by assessing and communicating evidence for the general public.
OBJECTIVES: To develop a priority-setting framework based on the interests of patients and the general public.
METHODS: A theoretical framework for priority setting from a patient/consumer perspective was developed. The process of development began with a poll to determine level of lay and health professional interest in the conclusions of 124 systematic reviews (194 responses). Data sources to identify patients' and consumers' information needs and interests were identified.
RESULTS: IQWiG's theoretical framework encompasses criteria for quality of evidence and interest, as well as being explicit about editorial considerations, including potential for harm. Dimensions of "patient interest" were identified, such as patients' concerns, information seeking, and use. Rather than being a single item capable of measurement by one means, the concept of "patients' interests" requires consideration of data and opinions from various sources.
CONCLUSIONS: The best evidence to communicate to patients/consumers is right, relevant and likely to be considered interesting and/or important to the people affected. What is likely to be interesting for the community generally is sufficient evidence for a concrete conclusion, in a common condition. More research is needed on characteristics of information that interest patients and consumers, methods of evaluating the effectiveness of priority setting, and methods to determine priorities for disinvestment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22004776     DOI: 10.1017/S0266462311000547

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care        ISSN: 0266-4623            Impact factor:   2.188


  5 in total

1.  Incremental levels of diagnostic information incentivize health-seeking in non-alcoholic fatty liver: a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Norberto C Chavez-Tapia; Tonatiuh Barrientos-Gutierrez; Leticia Torres-Ibarra; Beatriz Sanchez-Jiménez; Eva Juarez-Hernandez; Martha Ramos-Ostos; Luis F Alva-Lopez; Misael Uribe
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-05-18       Impact factor: 4.996

2.  The health systems' priority setting criteria for selecting health technologies: A systematic review of the current evidence.

Authors:  Mohammadreza Mobinizadeh; Pouran Raeissi; Amir Ashkan Nasiripour; Alireza Olyaeemanesh; Seyed Jamaleddin Tabibi
Journal:  Med J Islam Repub Iran       Date:  2016-02-16

3.  A systematic scoping review of the evidence for consumer involvement in organisations undertaking systematic reviews: focus on Cochrane.

Authors:  Richard F Morley; Gill Norman; Su Golder; Polly Griffith
Journal:  Res Involv Engagem       Date:  2016-12-21

4.  Study-based registers reduce waste in systematic reviewing: discussion and case report.

Authors:  Farhad Shokraneh; Clive E Adams
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2019-05-30

5.  Systematic review for the development of a pharmaceutical and medical products prioritization framework.

Authors:  Alberto Frutos Pérez-Surio; Mercedes Gimeno-Gracia; Ma Aránzazu Alcácera López; Ma Asunción Sagredo Samanes; Ma Del Puerto Pardo Jario; Ma Del Tránsito Salvador Gómez
Journal:  J Pharm Policy Pract       Date:  2019-08-21
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.