Literature DB >> 23337227

An international survey of the public engagement practices of health technology assessment organizations.

Jennifer A Whitty1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Many jurisdictions are moving toward greater public involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) processes. This study aims to provide a broad, cross-sectional indication of the extent and methods of public engagement in HTA, with a focus on which public are engaged, by what mechanisms, and the purpose of public engagement.
METHODS: An international Web-based survey of 217 organizations involved in HTA was undertaken. Contact e-mail addresses for targeted organizations were identified from the Internet.
RESULTS: Individuals from 39 (18%) of the contacted organizations completed a survey. The majority (67%) of responding HTA organizations undertake public engagement activities, predominantly involving lay representatives of organized groups (81%), and to a lesser extent individual patients/consumers (54%) or citizens/community members (54%). For organizations undertaking public engagement, mechanisms based on communication or consultation were the most common, although some organizations have used or intend to use participatory approaches, particularly the Citizens' Jury (8%) or Consensus Council (20%) methods. Respondents identified with a number of rationales and barriers for undertaking public engagement.
CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides further insight into the public engagement approaches that are used by HTA organizations in practice. In particular, it suggests a limited adoption of participatory methods to date, and interest in the use of social media. Study findings require further confirmation, due to limitations related to survey response. There is considerable opportunity for further research into pragmatic, robust, and meaningful approaches to public engagement to strengthen HTA policy and decision-making frameworks. An agenda for future research evolving from the survey responses is proposed.
Copyright © 2013 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23337227     DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.09.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  18 in total

Review 1.  A descriptive review on methods to prioritize outcomes in a health care context.

Authors:  Inger M Janssen; Ansgar Gerhardus; Milly A Schröer-Günther; Fülöp Scheibler
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-08-25       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 2.  Patient and Public Involvement in the Development of Healthcare Guidance: An Overview of Current Methods and Future Challenges.

Authors:  Ahmed Rashid; Victoria Thomas; Toni Shaw; Gillian Leng
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Involving patients in health technology funding decisions: stakeholder perspectives on processes used in Australia.

Authors:  Edilene Lopes; Jackie Street; Drew Carter; Tracy Merlin
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2015-02-21       Impact factor: 3.377

4.  Understanding the role of patient organizations in health technology assessment.

Authors:  Tiago Moreira
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-12-14       Impact factor: 3.377

5.  Public values and plurality in health priority setting: What to do when people disagree and why we should care about reasons as well as choices.

Authors:  Rachel Baker; Helen Mason; Neil McHugh; Cam Donaldson
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2021-04-02       Impact factor: 4.634

6.  Public preferences for engagement in Health Technology Assessment decision-making: protocol of a mixed methods study.

Authors:  Sally Wortley; Allison Tong; Emily Lancsar; Glenn Salkeld; Kirsten Howard
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 2.796

7.  Public attitudes and values in priority setting.

Authors:  Stuart J Peacock
Journal:  Isr J Health Policy Res       Date:  2015-06-19

8.  Steps toward improving ethical evaluation in health technology assessment: a proposed framework.

Authors:  Nazila Assasi; Jean-Eric Tarride; Daria O'Reilly; Lisa Schwartz
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2016-06-06       Impact factor: 2.652

9.  Mapping capacity to conduct health technology assessment in Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe.

Authors:  Antonio Olry de Labry Lima; Leticia García Mochon; Araceli Caro Martínez; Eva Martín Ruiz; Jaime Espin Balbino
Journal:  Croat Med J       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 1.351

10.  The value of quantitative patient preferences in regulatory benefit-risk assessment.

Authors:  Mart Oude Egbrink; Maarten IJzerman
Journal:  J Mark Access Health Policy       Date:  2014-04-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.