Introducing patients' and the public's perspectives to health technology assessment: A systematic review of international experiences

Gagnon, Marie‐Pierre; Desmartis, Marie; Lepage-Savary, Dolorès; Gagnon, Johanne; St-Pierre, Michèle; Rhainds, Marc; Lemieux, Renald; Gauvin, François-Pierre; Pollender, Hugo

doi:10.1017/s0266462310001315

Cited by 144 publications

(191 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

181

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Their study suggests that researchers are adapting 'jury' methods to attempt to meet the needs of policymakers, but because of tension between research aims and deliberative ideals, their success has been limited. Looking beyond the use of citizens' juries, other reviews show that public participation in deliberative events is an increasingly prominent feature of research in healthcare priority setting (Mitton et al, 2009), and, to a lesser extent, health technology assessment [HTA] (Gagnon et al, 2011). Mitton (2009) andGagnon's (2011) groups found that although the public's perspective added an important dimension to policy work, and governments appear to recognize the benefits of consulting multiple publics there is often poor alignment between deliberative research outcomes and actual policies.…”

Section: Figure 1 Types Of Deliberative Forummentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Which public and why deliberate? – A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research

Degeling

Carter

Rychetnik

2015

Social Science & Medicine

168

176

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deliberative methods are of increasing interest to public health researchers and policymakers. We systematically searched the peer-reviewed literature to identify public health and health policy research involving deliberative methods and report how deliberative methods have been used. We applied a taxonomy developed with reference to health policy and science and technology studies literatures to distinguish how deliberative methods engage different publics: citizens (ordinary people who are unfamiliar with the issues), consumers (those with relevant personal experience e.g. of illness) and advocates (those with technical expertise or partisan interests). We searched four databases for empirical studies in English published 1996-2013. This identified 78 articles reporting on 62 distinct events from the UK, USA, Canada, Australasia, Europe, Israel, Asia and Africa. Ten different types of deliberative techniques were used to represent and capture the interests and preferences of different types of public. Citizens were typically directed to consider community interests and were treated as a resource to increase democratic legitimacy. Citizens were preferred in methodological studies (those focused on understanding the techniques). Consumers were directed to focus on personal preferences; thus convened not as a source of policy decisions, but of knowledge about what those affected by the issue would accept. Advocates-who are most commonly used as expert witnesses in jurieswere sometimes engaged to deliberate with consumers or citizens. This almost always occurred in projects directly linked to policy processes. This suggests health policymakers may value deliberative methods as a way of understanding disagreement between perspectives. Overall however, the 'type' of public sought was often not explicit, and their role not specified. This review provides new insight into the heterogeneity and rising popularity of deliberative methods, and indicates a need for greater clarity regarding both the constitution of publics and the relative usefulness of different deliberative techniques.

show abstract

Section: Figure 1 Types Of Deliberative Forummentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mitton and colleagues (2009) surveyed the intention and methods of public engagement exercises in health priority setting. And Gagnon's (2011) group focused on the extent of patient and public involvement in health technology assessment. We complement and extend this work by answering the following questions:…”

Section: Figure 1 Types Of Deliberative Forummentioning

confidence: 99%

Which public and why deliberate? – A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research

Degeling

Carter

Rychetnik

2015

Social Science & Medicine

168

176

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Citizens can also help articulate the overarching values to guide assessments. HTA agencies have begun to explore a range of methods for engaging various publics in their activities [39][40][41]. Although these experiences have yielded promising insights, much developmental work remains to be done to specify which publics to involve in what activities and when along the stages of HTPA processes.…”

Section: From Evidence To Intelligencementioning

confidence: 99%

Ethics in Health Technology Assessment: Understanding Health Technologies as Policies

Giacomini¹,

Winsor²,

Abelson³

2013

Healthc Manage Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies strive to broaden their analyses to address more policy-relevant dimensions, including ethics. This trend has been described as transforming HTA to health technology policy analysis. A related social science concept, technology-as-policy, suggests useful directions for integrating ethics analysis into technology assessments. It challenges the HTA field to shift its focus from ethics to values and from evidence to intelligence. We describe these key concepts using recent Canadian and international innovations in HTA to illustrate promising trends.

show abstract

“…In the long run, the transparency of patient and public involvement [84][85][86] might be enhanced by creating a register of individuals and organisations interested in contributing regularly to drug evaluation and willing to publically disclose their conflicts of interest [87]. The register could then become the basis for selecting members of a permanent advisory body, funded by the AHTAPol, comprising a range of condition areas, general patient associations, and members of the public.…”

Section: Institutionalisation Of Patient and Public Involvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

The politics of health technology assessment in Poland

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introducing patients' and the public's perspectives to health technology assessment: A systematic review of international experiences

Cited by 144 publications

References 37 publications

Which public and why deliberate? – A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research

Which public and why deliberate? – A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research

Ethics in Health Technology Assessment: Understanding Health Technologies as Policies

The politics of health technology assessment in Poland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About