Background: Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an emerging approach to the treatment of patients with IgE-mediated food allergy and is in the process of transitioning to clinical practice.Objective: To develop patient-oriented clinical practice guidelines on oral immunotherapy based on evidence and ethical imperatives for the provision of safe and efficient food allergy management. Materials and methods:Recommendations were developed using a reflective patient-centered multicriteria approach including 22 criteria organized in five dimensions (clinical, populational, economic, organizational and sociopolitical). Data was obtained from: (1) a review of scientific and ethic literature; (2) consultations of allergists, other healthcare professionals (pediatricians, family physicians, nurses, registered dieticians, psychologists, peer supporters), patients and caregivers; and patient associations through structured consultative panels, interviews and on-line questionnaire; and (3) organizational and economic data from the milieu of care. All data was synthesized by criteria in a multicriteria deliberative guide that served as a platform for structured discussion and development of recommendations for each dimension, based on evidence, ethical imperatives and other considerations. Results:The deliberative grid included 162 articles from the literature and media reviews and data from consultations involving 85 individuals. Thirty-eight (38) recommendations were made for the practice of oral immunotherapy for the treatment of IgE mediated food allergy, based on evidence and a diversity of ethical imperatives. All recommendations were aimed at fostering a context conducive to achieving objectives identified by patients and caregivers with food allergy. Notably, specific recommendations were developed to promote a culture of shared responsibility between patients and healthcare system, equity in access, patient empowerment, shared decision making and personalization of OIT protocols to reflect patients' needs. It also provides recommendations to optimize organization of care to generate capacity to meet demand according to patient choice, e.g. OIT or avoidance. These recommendations were made acknowledging the necessity of ensuring sustainability of the clinical offer in light of various economic considerations. © The Author(s) 2020. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article' s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article'A multidisciplinary team comprised of experts from a diversity of fields was assembled, including allergists and other healthcare professional...

BackgroundMultiple technologies, procedures and programs call for fairly-based decisions for prioritization of healthcare interventions. There is a diversity of perspectives of what constitutes a legitimate decision, which depends on both the process and the reasoning applied. Current approaches focus on technical aspects while methods to support alignment of decisions with the compassionate impetus of healthcare systems is lacking.MethodsThe framework was developed based on an analysis of the foundations of healthcare systems, the reasoning underlying decisions and fair processes. The concept of reflective multicriteria was created: it assumes that decisionmakers guided by a generic interpretative frame rooted in the compassionate impetus of healthcare systems, can sharpen their reasoning, raise awareness of their motivation and increase legitimacy of decisions. The initial framework was made available through a not for profit organization (the EVIDEM Collaboration, 2006–2017) to stimulate its development with thought leaders and stakeholders in an open source philosophy. Development was tailored to the real-life needs of decisionmakers and drew on several domains of knowledge including healthcare ethics, evidenced-based medicine, health economics, health technology assessment and multicriteria approaches.ResultsThe 10th edition framework builds on four dimensions: (1) the universal impetus of healthcare systems, (2) reasoning, values and ethics, (3) evidence and knowledge on interventions, and (4) a transformative process. Mathematical aspects of the framework are designed to help clarify, express and share individual reasoning; this non-conventional use of numbers requires a cultural change and needs to be phased in slowly. The framework includes four tools for easy adaptation and operationalization: (a) concepts and operationalization, (b) adapt and pilot, (c) evidence matrix, (d) mathematical representation of reasoning. Application is useful throughout all types of healthcare interventions, for all levels of decision, and across the globe.ConclusionBy clarifying their reasoning while keeping decisionmakers aware of the impetus of healthcare systems, reflective multicriteria provides an effective approach to increase the legitimacy of decisions. Beyond a tool, reflective multicriteria pioneered by EVIDEM is geared to transform our vision of the value of healthcare interventions and how they might contribute to relevant, equitable and sustainable healthcare systems.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12962-018-0116-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Legitimacy of deliberation processes leading to recommendations for public financing or clinical practice depends on the data considered, stakeholders involved and the process by which both of these are selected and organised. Oortwijn et al provides an interesting exploration of processes currently in place in health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. However, agencies are struggling with core issues central to their legitimacy that goes beyond the procedural exploration of Oortwijn et al, such as: how processes reflect the mission and values of the agencies? How they ensure that recommendations are fair and reasonable? Which role should be given to public and patient involvement? Do agencies have a positive impact on the healthcare system and the populations served? What are the drivers of their evolution? We concur with Culyer commentary on the need of learning from doing what works best and that a reflection is indeed needed to "enhance the fairness and legitimacy of HTA."

No abstract

Context: The increasing pressure on primary care services calls for efficient approaches to assess the potential value of innovations and identify facilitators to their deployment in local contexts. Objective: To explore the value arguments of innovations in primary care identified as promising during Quebec College of Family Physicians' Symposia on Innovations and to propose avenues for their improvement and deployment. Methods: Ten innovations were selected using their ranking at the Symposia and preestablished criteria to ensure diversity. An evidence-informed multidimensional deliberative approach (clinical, populational, economic, organizational and sociocultural dimensions) was applied by a panel of 12 clinicians, managers, patients and citizens. Using data synthesized by dimension, each participant identified arguments on the value of each innovation and appraised them on a numerical scale. The arguments were discussed by the group, and a qualitative analysis with inter-rater validation of the deliberation was performed and the mean appraisal scores at the group level were calculated. These qualitative and quantitative data were synthesized and used as a basis for a second discussion with the group during which avenues for deployment were organized by thematic analysis. Results: Innovations fell into three categories: support for clinical processes (n=5), adaptation of the organization of care to vulnerable populations (n=3), and support for quality improvement (n=2). Innovations aiming at adapting the organization of care for vulnerable populations were considered of highest value overall. Quality improvement innovations received mixed appraisals and needed to be further developed in terms of their value proposition and organizational fit. Innovations to support clinical processes also received mixed appraisals; proposals for further development included keeping them up to date and integrating them with information systems. Conclusions: This study highlights the factors that influence the value of certain categories of primary care innovations as well as avenues for their improvement and implementation that can guide innovators. This work demonstrates that exploring complex innovations with a multidimensional deliberative approach including patients and citizens is useful to identify their value arguments from a comprehensive standpoint, which is essential to identify the best implementation avenues to optimize the creation of value in real life.