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

Abstract

Background Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies have an important role in the evaluation and approval of new technologies. They determine their value within a health system so to promote equitable, quality care with available healthcare resources. Many HTA agencies have some mechanism for involving patients in their processes, but there is great variability and an absence of comprehensive, robust practices for involvement. The accelerating pace of medical innovation creates a need to improve the depth and breadth of patient involvement in the HTA process. Main body In this ‘Call to action’, we present ideas from three HTA expert commentaries calling for collaborative learning and to share innovative ideas for changes in HTA. We also draw on examples of HTA agencies creatively pursuing this goal. We propose a ‘Call to action’ for HTA stakeholders to undertake serious dialogue with patient advocates aimed at creating shared goals. HTA agencies can use these goals to ensure meaningful patient involvement at every step of the HTA process. Five elements are explored. In ‘Recognizing the value of shared purpose’, we highlight examples of HTA agencies that have patients working in partnership with medical practitioners and HTA staff. Results include improved processes that instil confidence. ‘Committing to patient involvement as part of HTA culture’ highlights several initiatives aimed at changes in HTA organisational culture to be more inclusive of patients. In ‘Aligning patient and HTA goals’ we cite work in Belgium and New Zealand which places a greater emphasis on quality of life rather than life expectancy and cost-effectiveness. By ‘Integrating patient involvement at every step of the HTA process’ patients can make vital contributions at every stage of the HTA process. We provide two examples of where HTA agencies have successfully involved patients early in the process in order to broaden the scope of evaluations. ‘Developing a common language and working together’ can support transformative dialogue through ‘unified language’. Conclusion The authors of this commentary ask that agencies and stakeholders involved in HTA take up this call to work together for visionary and transformative elevation of the voice of patients in HTA worldwide.

Reinforcing Collaboration and Harmonization to Unlock the Potentials of Advanced Therapy Medical Products: Future Efforts Are Awaited From Manufacturers and Decision-Makers

“…The engagement of patients in the regulatory process is not new and increasingly highlighted, for example, EMA has allowed patients to be members of scientific committees with equal voting rights, such as the Committee for Advanced Therapies ( 32 ). In the FDA, the Patient-Focused Drug Development program was launched in December 2020 to empower perspectives of patients to be captured and incorporated into the drug evaluation process ( 33 ).…”

Making community voices heard in a research–health service alliance, the evolving role of the Community Advisory Group: a case study from the members’ perspective

“…Evidence generated on benefits, clinical utility and cost-effectiveness led to Health Technology Assessment (HTA) approval to reimburse testing for complex genetic conditions in children. Across HTA systems, patient advocates have important roles in informing and supporting HTA processes to improve health outcomes for patients, by providing patient submissions and sitting on appraisal committees [ 24 ].…”

Citizen involvement in scientific activities and extension of knowledge to society

“…In health research, a member of society is any citizen, such as actual or potential patients, caregivers, family members, health service users, or patient representatives like associations or non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Therefore, it is a key area for the development of responsible research and innovation (R&I), bringing together several stakeholders who usually do not interact with each other, such as researchers, politicians, civil society, industries, NGOs, and citizens, to discuss and deliberate on concerning of ethics, science, and technology (6)(7)(8)(9) .…”