RESUMOObjetivo: Identificar os vários critérios utilizados por agências e órgãos governamentais internacionais na Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde (ATS). Métodos: Foi realizada uma revisão rápida com busca estruturada na base de dados Medline (via PubMed) e Lilacs complementada por busca na literatura cinzenta, sem restrição de idioma. Incluíram-se estudos da área de saúde que descreviam critérios e que utilizaram o método MCDA (Análise de Decisão Multicritérios) na ATS. Excluíram-se estudos que avaliaram apenas uma tecnologia específica ou contexto restrito. Os critérios foram agregados e sumarizados conforme opinião de especialistas em ATS. Resultados: Foram identificadas 3.746 publicações, sendo 27 selecionadas. Os critérios extraídos foram categorizados e seus respectivos atributos foram listados. Dez categorias foram apresentadas: benefício e risco da intervenção (4 critérios); impacto da doença (4 critérios); impacto econômico (5 critérios); contexto terapêutico da intervenção (4 critérios); qualidade e incerteza da evidência (4 critérios); implementação da intervenção (5 critérios); benefícios para a sociedade (5 critérios); benefícios para o sistema de saúde público (5 critérios); benefícios para a indústria (1 critério); e outros (3 critérios). Os atributos mais prevalentes foram: custo-efetividade; segurança e tolerabilidade; impacto orçamentário para o sistema/plano de saúde; gravidade da doença; equidade; efetividade; custo. Conclusões: Os órgãos decisores utilizam grande variedade de critérios para o MCDA, refletindo visões e valores diferentes entre as culturas. O estudo fornece informação para discussão no contexto brasileiro de uma lista mais ampla e possível padronização de critérios a serem utilizados na tomada de decisão pública ou privada sobre a incorporação de novas tecnologias. ABSTRACTObjective: To identify the various criteria used by international government agencies and bodies in Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Methods: A rapid review was conducted with a structured search in the Medline database (via PubMed) and Lilacs supplemented by a search in the gray literature, without a restriction of language. Inclusion criteria were studies in health context, describing the criteria and using the MCDA (Multicriteria Decision Analysis) method in HTA. We excluded studies that assessed only one specific technology or restricted context. The criteria were aggregated and summarized according to the opinion of HTA experts. Results: A total of 3,746 publications were identified, of which 27 were selected. The extracted criteria were categorized, and their respective

IntroductionThe Patient Perspective is an initiative to include the testimonials of patients or their representatives at the time of the initial recommendation of health technology assessment (HTA) processes developed by the National Committee for Health Technology Incorporation in the Brazilian Public Health System (CONITEC). It allows these actors to be involved prior to the public consultation. This action is articulated with a framework of strategies to encourage patient and public involvement (PPI) in HTA in Brazilian Public Health System (SUS). This paper aims to analyze the first year of its implementation.MethodsThis is a descriptive study, based on document analysis (minutes of meetings, technical and society reports, videos of CONITEC meetings, tables for internal control, etc.) and systematic observation of the activities related to the initiative. Field notes were taken and their contents were coded, following content analysis criteria.ResultsFrom December 2020 to November 2021, 1,052 subscribers were registered in 75 public calls, which resulted in the participation of 42 people. The testimonials presented information about the illness experience, its impact on quality of life, use of technologies, and difficulties of accessing and adherence to treatment. The patient perspective has been useful to give visibility to specific dimensions of experiences regarding not only the health conditions but SUS as well. Furthermore, some testimonials produced tensions and repercussions about HTA processes, such as the consideration of aspects or technologies not covered in the clinical studies and thus the HTA, as well as the need of reviewing some results of the technical report.ConclusionsThe patient perspective has had the support of the target audience. Additionally, it has been successful in including various types of participants and different aspects of the experience with the health condition and/or the technologies under evaluation. In general, it has been possible to observe the diversification of modes of PPI and institutional learning towards the improvement of HTA in SUS.