Louise Brereton1, Christine Ingleton2, Clare Gardiner2, Elizabeth Goyder1, Kati Mozygemba3, Kristin Bakke Lysdahl4, Marcia Tummers5, Dario Sacchini6, Wojciech Leppert7, Aurelija Blaževičienė8, Gert Jan van der Wilt5, Pietro Refolo6, Martina De Nicola6, James Chilcott1, Wija Oortwijn9. 1. 1 ScHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. 2. 2 School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. 3. 4 Department of Health Services Research, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany. 4. 5 Centre for Medical Ethics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 5. 6 Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 6. 7 Institute of Bioethics, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy. 7. 8 Department of Palliative Medicine, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland. 8. 9 Department of Nursing and Care, Hospital of Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania. 9. 10 Health Unit, ECORYS Nederland B.V., Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stakeholders are people with an interest in a topic. Internationally, stakeholder involvement in palliative care research and health technology assessment requires development. Stakeholder involvement adds value throughout research (from prioritising topics to disseminating findings). Philosophies and understandings about the best ways to involve stakeholders in research differ internationally. Stakeholder involvement took place in seven countries (England, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway and Poland). Findings informed a project that developed concepts and methods for health technology assessment and applied these to evaluate models of palliative care service delivery. AIMS: To report on stakeholder involvement in the INTEGRATE-HTA project and how issues identified informed project development. DESIGN: Using stakeholder consultation or a qualitative research design, as appropriate locally, stakeholders in seven countries acted as 'advisors' to aid researchers' decision making. Thematic analysis was used to identify key issues across countries. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 132 stakeholders (82 professionals and 50 'lay' people) aged ⩾18 participated in individual face-to-face or telephone interviews, consultation meetings or focus groups. RESULTS: Different stakeholder involvement methods were used successfully to identify key issues in palliative care. A total of 23 issues common to three or more countries informed decisions about the intervention and comparator of interest, sub questions and specific assessments within the health technology assessment. CONCLUSION: Stakeholders, including patients and families undergoing palliative care, can inform project decision making using various involvement methods according to the local context. Researchers should consider local understandings about stakeholder involvement as views of appropriate and feasible methods vary. Methods for stakeholder involvement, especially consultation, need further development.
BACKGROUND: Stakeholders are people with an interest in a topic. Internationally, stakeholder involvement in palliative care research and health technology assessment requires development. Stakeholder involvement adds value throughout research (from prioritising topics to disseminating findings). Philosophies and understandings about the best ways to involve stakeholders in research differ internationally. Stakeholder involvement took place in seven countries (England, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway and Poland). Findings informed a project that developed concepts and methods for health technology assessment and applied these to evaluate models of palliative care service delivery. AIMS: To report on stakeholder involvement in the INTEGRATE-HTA project and how issues identified informed project development. DESIGN: Using stakeholder consultation or a qualitative research design, as appropriate locally, stakeholders in seven countries acted as 'advisors' to aid researchers' decision making. Thematic analysis was used to identify key issues across countries. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 132 stakeholders (82 professionals and 50 'lay' people) aged ⩾18 participated in individual face-to-face or telephone interviews, consultation meetings or focus groups. RESULTS: Different stakeholder involvement methods were used successfully to identify key issues in palliative care. A total of 23 issues common to three or more countries informed decisions about the intervention and comparator of interest, sub questions and specific assessments within the health technology assessment. CONCLUSION: Stakeholders, including patients and families undergoing palliative care, can inform project decision making using various involvement methods according to the local context. Researchers should consider local understandings about stakeholder involvement as views of appropriate and feasible methods vary. Methods for stakeholder involvement, especially consultation, need further development.
Entities:
Keywords:
Patient involvement; health technology assessment; palliative care
Authors: Wija Oortwijn; Don Husereau; Julia Abelson; Edwine Barasa; Diana Dana Bayani; Vania Canuto Santos; Anthony Culyer; Karen Facey; David Grainger; Katharina Kieslich; Daniel Ollendorf; Andrés Pichon-Riviere; Lars Sandman; Valentina Strammiello; Yot Teerawattananon Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2022-06-03 Impact factor: 2.406
Authors: Wija Oortwijn; Don Husereau; Julia Abelson; Edwine Barasa; Diana Dana Bayani; Vania Canuto Santos; Anthony Culyer; Karen Facey; David Grainger; Katharina Kieslich; Daniel Ollendorf; Andrés Pichon-Riviere; Lars Sandman; Valentina Strammiello; Yot Teerawattananon Journal: Value Health Date: 2022-06 Impact factor: 5.101
Authors: Jan W van der Scheer; Matthew Woodward; Akbar Ansari; Tim Draycott; Cathy Winter; Graham Martin; Karolina Kuberska; Natalie Richards; Ruth Kern; Mary Dixon-Woods Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2021-05-11 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Jennifer Tjia; Margaret Clayton; Germán Chiriboga; Brooke Staples; Geraldine Puerto; Lynley Rappaport; Susan DeSanto-Madeya Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2021-04-30 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Maria Dimitrova; Ivett Jakab; Zornitsa Mitkova; Maria Kamusheva; Konstantin Tachkov; Bertalan Nemeth; Antal Zemplenyi; Dalia Dawoud; Diana M J Delnoij; François Houýez; Zoltan Kalo Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-07-28