Literature DB >> 23052686

Public engagement in health technology assessment and coverage decisions: a study of experiences in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.

Julia Kreis1, Harald Schmidt.   

Abstract

In the United States and internationally, the trend for public engagement in health policy and practice is increasing, particularly regarding health technology assessment (HTA), which informs often controversial coverage decisions. However, there is no consensus about which members of the public should be involved in which processes or what the respective rationales and benefits of public engagement are. This article explores operational processes and underlying rationales of public engagement at HTA agencies in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. The analysis is based on website information, legal framework documents, published and gray literature, and semistructured, in-depth interviews with top officials at these agencies. Engagement processes differ across agencies, particularly regarding the areas in which the public is involved, which groups of the public are involved, what weight they have in influencing decisions, how they are recruited and supported, and how potential conflicts of interests are addressed. Different emphases on rationales and drivers behind public engagement partly reflect the respective political environments. Interviewees indicated a range of benefits of engagement and factors influencing success or failure. The results highlight the need to be clear about the purpose and conduct of engagement in order to maximize the benefits of this increasingly widespread policy tool.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23052686     DOI: 10.1215/03616878-1898812

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Health Polit Policy Law        ISSN: 0361-6878            Impact factor:   2.265


  6 in total

1.  Prevalence and Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest in Dermatology Patient Advocacy Organizations.

Authors:  David G Li; Sean Singer; Arash Mostaghimi
Journal:  JAMA Dermatol       Date:  2019-04-01       Impact factor: 10.282

2.  Patients' preferences for anti-osteoporosis drug treatment: a cross-European discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Mickaël Hiligsmann; Benedict G Dellaert; Carmen D Dirksen; Verity Watson; Sandrine Bours; Stefan Goemaere; Jean-Yves Reginster; Christian Roux; Bernie McGowan; Carmel Silke; Bryan Whelan; Adolfo Diez-Perez; Elisa Torres; Georgios Papadakis; Rene Rizzoli; Cyrus Cooper; Gill Pearson; Annelies Boonen
Journal:  Rheumatology (Oxford)       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 7.580

3.  Putting public health ethics into practice: a systematic framework.

Authors:  Georg Marckmann; Harald Schmidt; Neema Sofaer; Daniel Strech
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2015-02-06

4.  Broadening public participation in systematic reviews: a case example involving young people in two configurative reviews.

Authors:  Kathryn Oliver; Rebecca Rees; Louca-Mai Brady; Josephine Kavanagh; Sandy Oliver; James Thomas
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 5.273

5.  Social participation in the health technology incorporation process into Unified Health System.

Authors:  Aline Silveira Silva; Maria Sharmila Alina de Sousa; Emília Vitória da Silva; Dayani Galato
Journal:  Rev Saude Publica       Date:  2019-12-20       Impact factor: 2.106

6.  Engaging Patients in the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value in Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Initiative: Processes and Lessons Learned.

Authors:  William K Evans; Pam Takhar; Valerie McDonald; Martine Elias; Louise Binder; Stéphanie Michaud; Mina Tadrous; Caroline Muñoz; Kelvin K W Chan
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2022-08-07       Impact factor: 3.109

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.