EUnetHTA: Patients’ Perspectives in the HTA Core Model®

Ørtenblad, Lisbeth; Jensen, Lotte; Scalzo, Alessandra Lo

doi:10.1007/978-981-10-4068-9_24

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several groups have produced guidance for various stakeholders such as clinical and outcomes researchers [27], those who develop guidelines [28], or those who evaluate technologies or therapies through formal health technology assessment processes [7]. Relating to health technology assessment, an international multi-stakeholder workgroup (HTAi Patient and Citizen Involvement Special Interest Group) collaborates and advocates since several years to strengthen the exchange of experience and the continuous methodological development in this area [8,29].…”

Section: Advocacy Purposementioning

confidence: 99%

“…A structured process for patient insight gathering in early drug development related quality of life and patient experiences survey data" [50]. Several groups have started to work on Patient Experience Frameworks and to define the methodological specifications of such evidence [8,50]. Patient Centered Outcomes Measures (PCOMs): Like Patient-Based Evidence, the concept of PCOMs has emerged in the recent years to overcome the limitation of standardized 'generic' Patient Reported Outcomes instruments.…”

Section: Examples Of Patient Inputmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At the International Society for HTA, a multi-stakeholder work group (the Patient and Citizen's Involvement Group; http://www.htai.org/interest-groups/patient-and-citizen-involvement.html) is collaborating in order to improve the methodological, contextual and procedural ground for patient involvement in HTA. This work recently resulted in the publication of a first comprehensive guidance book, including the current status of patient involvement in HTA in numerous countries across the globe [8].…”

Section: Examples Of Patient Inputmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many healthcare decision makers now ask for Patient Relevant Outcomes and patient experiences when they consider access to new technologies or their reimbursement [7]. A recently released book on 'Patient Involvement in Health Technology Assessment' lays a foundation for more standardized approaches and best practices for including the patient perspective in the evaluation of new therapies [8].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Role of Patients inMarket Access

Holtorf¹,

Cook²

2018

Pharmaceutical Market Access in Developed Markets2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Advocacy Purposementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Examples Of Patient Inputmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Examples Of Patient Inputmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Role of Patients inMarket Access

Holtorf¹,

Cook²

2018

Pharmaceutical Market Access in Developed Markets2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation Criteria for Weight Management Apps: Validation Using a Modified Delphi Process (Preprint)

Robles¹,

Puigdomènech²,

Gómez-Calderón³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND The use of Mobile Applications (apps) for managing overweightness/obesity has increased over recent years. However, there is a lack of evidence on the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of these apps. The EVALAPPS project will develop and validate an assessment instrument to specifically assess these dimensions of overweightness/obesity management apps. OBJECTIVE To reach a consensus among stakeholders on a comprehensive set of criteria to guide development of the EVALAPPS assessment instrument. A modified Delphi process was used in order to: 1) verify the robustness of the criteria identified through a literature review; 2) prioritize a set of the identified criteria. METHODS 31 stakeholders were invited to participate in a 2 round Delphi process with an initial number of 114 criteria identified from the literature. In Round 1 participants rated criteria according to relevance (0 = “I suggest this criterion is excluded”, 5 = “This criterion is extremely relevant”). A criterion was accepted if a median value equal or greater than 4 and RIQR equal or less than 0.67 was reached. In Round 2 participants were asked about criteria discarded in round 1. The prioritization strategy was based on identifying those indicators categorized as Crucial in Round 1 according to: a) the importance attributed by participants (criteria with a mean value ≥ 4.00); and, b) the level of agreement (criteria scoring almost 4-5 by 80% of the participants). RESULTS The response rate was 84% in Round 1, 90% in Round 2. A total number of 107 criteria were accepted by consensus (94%), 105 in Round 1 and 2 in Round 2. After the prioritization strategy, 53 criteria were deemed Crucial. These related mainly to the Security and Privacy (24.5%) and Usability (17.0%) dimensions, followed by Health indicators: Activity data, Clinical Effectiveness and Reliability (9.4% each). CONCLUSIONS Results confirmed the robustness of the identified criteria, with those relating to Security and Privacy being deemed most relevant by stakeholders. Additionally, a specific set of criteria based on Health indicators was also prioritized (taken together, 20.7%). CLINICALTRIAL

show abstract

EUnetHTA: Patients’ Perspectives in the HTA Core Model®

Cited by 2 publications

References 10 publications

The Role of Patients inMarket Access

The Role of Patients inMarket Access

Evaluation Criteria for Weight Management Apps: Validation Using a Modified Delphi Process (Preprint)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About