Which value aspects are relevant for the evaluation of medical devices? Exploring stakeholders’ views through a Web-Delphi process

Abstract

Background Implementation and uptake of health technology assessment for evaluating medical devices require including aspects that different stakeholders consider relevant, beyond cost and effectiveness. However, the involvement of stakeholders in sharing their views still needs to be improved. Objective This article explores the relevance of distinct value aspects for evaluating different types of medical devices according to stakeholders' views. Methods Thirty-four value aspects collected through literature review and expert validation were the input for a 2-round Web-Delphi process. In the Web-Delphi, a panel of participants from five stakeholders’ groups (healthcare professionals, buyers and policymakers, academics, industry, and patients and citizens) judged the relevance of each aspect, by assigning a relevance-level (‘Critical’, ‘Fundamental’, ‘Complementary’, or ‘Irrelevant’), for two types of medical devices separately: ‘Implantable’ and ‘In vitro tests based on biomarkers’. Opinions were analysed at the panel and group level, and similarities across devices were identified. Results One hundred thirty-four participants completed the process. No aspects were considered ‘Irrelevant’, neither for the panel nor for stakeholder groups, in both types of devices. The panel considered effectiveness and safety-related aspects ‘Critical’ (e.g., ‘Adverse events for the patient’), and costs-related aspects ‘Fundamental’ (e.g., ‘Cost of the medical device’). Several additional aspects not included in existing frameworks’ literature, e.g., related to environmental impact and devices’ usage by the healthcare professional, were deemed as relevant by the panel. A moderate to substantial agreement across and within groups was observed. Conclusion Different stakeholders agree on the relevance of including multiple aspects in medical devices’ evaluation. This study produces key information to inform the development of frameworks for valuing medical devices, and to guide evidence collection.

Assessing medical devices: a qualitative study from the validate perspective

“…Methods evolve, offering new ways for obtaining reliable data on the effects of health technology, and HTA guidelines already provide some room to consider diverse outcome measures (31;32). Together with the broader HTA community (those using outcomes of HTA or being impacted by it), HTA practitioners may explore how this new methodology may help in assessing medical devices and improve the relevance of HTA (33).…”

Applications of Blockchain-Based Technology for Healthcare Devices Post-market Surveillance

“…Currently, both the technology itself and the associated legal frameworks are met with skepticism due to their relatively low adoption rates in the healthcare sector as a whole. To address these challenges, stakeholders involved in the PMS process for medical devices should offer educational resources aimed at sharing the advantages and disadvantages of BCT in the medical device sector [ 71 - 73 ]. This proactive approach can help promote understanding and acceptance of blockchain within the industry.…”

Advancing hospital-based health technology assessment: evaluating genomic panel contracting strategies for blood tumors through a multimethodology

“…In model structuring, the evaluators participated in three workshops, led by an impartial facilitator, which culminated in the selection of the five criteria to be included in the model. In the first workshop, we presented the group of evaluators with a list of 34 potential evaluation aspects – relevant for the evaluation of in vitro medical devices – obtained from a Delphi survey previously created for the MEDI-VALUE project (26). Still within the first workshop, we asked the group to classify each aspect as critical, fundamental, complementary, or irrelevant, considering their relevance for the genomic technologies’ context.…”