Literature DB >> 30051315

Putting Patients at the Centre of Healthcare: Progress and Challenges for Health Technology Assessments.

Karen M Facey1, Nicola Bedlington2, Sarah Berglas3, Neil Bertelsen4, Ann N V Single5, Victoria Thomas6.   

Abstract

Health technology assessments (HTAs) are meant to inform health policy by taking account of all the potential impacts of using a health technology. In the 1990s, HTAs included rigorous research to produce patient-based evidence, and some supported participation of patient representatives to help focus HTA research and determine value. In the 2000s, HTAs became more closely linked to reimbursement decisions, focusing on clinical and cost effectiveness. Patient involvement should be tailored to the specific needs of each HTA. As the timeframe for HTAs has reduced, research to produce patient-based evidence has been replaced by input from patient groups. This places a burden on individuals and organizations that needs to be critically reviewed. Therefore, it is imperative that we clarify when patient involvement is likely to add value and support patients to provide their unique knowledge in the most optimal way to influence HTA decision making. To reduce the burden on patient groups, more must be done to encourage research to produce patient-based evidence early in technology development. Like clinical research, a programme of research should be carefully planned, with appropriate methodological rigor for each study, and all research should be published. For this, the development of quality standards for research to produce patient-based evidence may be needed. Patient involvement has inherent value. It should be focused, systematic and transparent, and evolve according to the experiences of all stakeholders. All countries or collaboratives that undertake HTA should consider how they can elicit the needs, preferences and experiences of patients to support creation of patient-centered healthcare policy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30051315     DOI: 10.1007/s40271-018-0325-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Patient        ISSN: 1178-1653            Impact factor:   3.883


  12 in total

1.  After Bristol: putting patients at the centre.

Authors:  Angela Coulter
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-03-16

2.  Medscape's response to the Institute of Medicine Report: Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century.

Authors:  M Leavitt
Journal:  MedGenMed       Date:  2001-03-05

3.  Giving Patients' Preferences a Voice in Medical Treatment Life Cycle: The PREFER Public-Private Project.

Authors:  Esther W de Bekker-Grob; Conny Berlin; Bennett Levitan; Karim Raza; Kalliopi Christoforidi; Irina Cleemput; Jana Pelouchova; Harald Enzmann; Nigel Cook; Mats G Hansson
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  Giving Patients a Meaningful Voice in European Health Technology Assessments: The Role of Health Preference Research.

Authors:  Axel C Mühlbacher; F Reed Johnson
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  EVALUATION OF PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INITIATIVES IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: A SURVEY OF INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES.

Authors:  Laura Weeks; Julie Polisena; Anna Mae Scott; Anke-Peggy Holtorf; Sophie Staniszewska; Karen Facey
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2017-11-10       Impact factor: 2.188

Review 6.  Patients' perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation.

Authors:  Karen Facey; Antoine Boivin; Javier Gracia; Helle Ploug Hansen; Alessandra Lo Scalzo; Jean Mossman; Ann Single
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 2.188

Review 7.  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

Review 8.  Patient value: Perspectives from the advocacy community.

Authors:  Bonnie J Addario; Ana Fadich; Jesme Fox; Linda Krebs; Deborah Maskens; Kathy Oliver; Erin Schwartz; Gilliosa Spurrier-Bernard; Timothy Turnham
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2017-09-20       Impact factor: 3.377

9.  Patients' perspectives can be integrated in health technology assessments: an exploratory analysis of CADTH Common Drug Review.

Authors:  Sarah Berglas; Lauren Jutai; Gail MacKean; Laura Weeks
Journal:  Res Involv Engagem       Date:  2016-06-07

10.  Improving Cross-Sector Comparisons: Going Beyond the Health-Related QALY.

Authors:  John Brazier; Aki Tsuchiya
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 2.561

View more
  5 in total

1.  Patient Preference Studies During Early Drug Development: Aligning Stakeholders to Ensure Development Plans Meet Patient Needs.

Authors:  Nigel S Cook; Julie Cave; Anke-Peggy Holtorf
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2019-04-24

2.  Patients and public are important stakeholders in health technology assessment but the level of involvement is low - a call to action.

Authors:  Janet L Wale; Samuel Thomas; Dominique Hamerlijnck; Ronald Hollander
Journal:  Res Involv Engagem       Date:  2021-01-05

3.  Can We Afford to Exclude Patients Throughout Health Technology Assessment?

Authors:  Janet L Wale; David Chandler; Deborah Collyar; Dominique Hamerlijnck; Roberto Saldana; Zack Pemberton-Whitely
Journal:  Front Med Technol       Date:  2022-01-25

4.  Potential Barriers of Patient Involvement in Health Technology Assessment in Central and Eastern European Countries.

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

5.  Use of Patient Preferences in Health Technology Assessment: Perspectives of Canadian, Belgian and German HTA Representatives.

Authors:  Eline van Overbeeke; Valérie Forrester; Steven Simoens; Isabelle Huys
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 3.883

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.