Contribution of Stakeholder Engagement to the Impact of a Health Technology Assessment: An Irish Case Study

Ryan, Máirín; Moran, Patrick; Harrington, Patricia; Murphy, Linda; O’Neill, Michelle; Whelan, Marty; Teljeur, Conor

doi:10.1017/s026646231700085x

Cited by 23 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The HTA provoked a strong response from local clinicians and one of the conclusions drawn by the authors is the importance of involving stakeholders in the HTA process in the right way and at the right time. A similar observation is made in the story from Ireland, where Ryan et al (10) describe the vital contributions of stakeholder engagement to the impact of an HTA of automated external defibrillators conducted by the Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA). The story tells about the role of a robust media management strategy as a crucial part of the HTA process as a means to promote public engagement and understanding of the issues.…”

supporting

confidence: 52%

Insights From the Front Lines: A Collection of Stories of Hta Impact From Inahta Member Agencies

Schuller¹,

Werkö

2017

Int J Technol Assess Health Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This mini-theme contains six stories of health technology assessment (HTA) impact from member agencies of The International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA), which were originally shared at the 2015 and 2016 INAHTA Congresses. The INAHTA impact story sharing is an innovative network activity where member agency representatives share experiences of HTA impact in a loosely structured story format. Through this process, members gain insights from other agencies on new ways of thinking about and approaching HTA impact assessment. A guide is provided to members to prepare their story, and the best story receives the David Hailey Award for Best Impact Story. This mini-theme contains stories of HTA impact from six member agencies in different parts of the world: the Health Assessment Division of the Ministry of Public Health (Uruguay), the Institute of Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (Germany), the Health Information and Quality Authority (Ireland), the Finnish Office for Health Technology Assessment (Finland), the Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures-Surgical (Australia), and the Institut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociaux (Canada). Across the papers, common themes emerge about the importance of appropriate engagement of stakeholders and the broadening scope of HTA beyond reimbursement decision making.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 52%

Insights From the Front Lines: A Collection of Stories of Hta Impact From Inahta Member Agencies

Schuller¹,

Werkö

2017

Int J Technol Assess Health Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A large number of included studies (12/32) were conducted in Canada (1;12;23;24;33;38;39;42;43;50;51;60), followed by Australia (4/32) (47;55;56;60), Italy (3/32) (37;40;48), England (3/32) (34;49;53), Germany (2/32) (10;35), and Finland (2/32) (41;46). The remaining studies were conducted in Austria (36), Ireland (52), Scotland (45), South Korea (57), Spain (44), and one from more than one country (31).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Resources mobilized for PPI included information resources in almost all of the included studies (see Table 1). Other studies described time resources (1;34;37;41;40;44;46;48;51;52;59), material resources such as computers, meeting rooms and office supplies (37;46;49;50;56;59), human resources (32–34;37;41;44;46–52;54;55;60;61), and financial resources (34;49;52;61).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specific human resources were dedicated for PPI in the majority of studies (17/32). Six studies (37;46;49;50;56;59) reported the use of material resources, and only four studies (34;49;52;61) reported the use of financial resources. With respect to informational resources, written information such as evidence brief (12), e-mail invitation (59), and draft of the recommendations (46) were the most used.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…• Focus on specific questions for consultation (38) • Facilitation of the meetings by an independent facilitator trained in public participation (37;38;50;59) • Ensuring that all participants express themselves (38) • Provide lay language summaries of scientific results and avoid or explain abbreviations and jargon (38;57) • Providing feedback about their participation (38) Decision-making context • Online consultation not appropriate for all patients (47) • Patients not involved in defining the issues of interest and objectives (39;52) • Uneven understanding of patients' role (52) • Risk of symbolic participation (54) • Fear of slowing down the HTA process (38) • Fear of diverting the focus of the evaluation toward less essential aspects (38) • HTA producers felt unprepared, lack of instruments or tools (38) • Unsuitable heath condition of the targeted patients (39) • Sensitive or difficult topic for patients (39) • Different levels of productivity and motivation (39) • Perceptions that patients lack knowledge and overall perspective in making decisions (39) • Patients intimidated by HTA experts and healthcare professionals (38;41) • Lack of familiarity with the scientific language and lack of knowledge in HTA (38) Awareness raising…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Patient and public involvement in health technology assessment: update of a systematic review of international experiences

Gagnon

Dipankui

Poder

et al. 2021

Int J Technol Assess Health Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To summarize current evidence on patient and public involvement (PPI) in health technology assessment (HTA) in order to synthesize the barriers and facilitators, and to propose a framework to assess its impact. Methods We conducted an update of a systematic review published in 2011 considering the recent scientific literature (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies). We searched papers published between March 2009 (end of the initial search) and December 2019 in five databases using specific search strategies. We identified other publications through citation tracking and contacting authors of previous related studies. Reviewers independently selected relevant studies based on prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. We extracted information using a pre-established grid. Results We identified a total of 7872 publications from the main search strategy. Ultimately, thirty-one distinct new studies met the inclusion criteria, whereas seventeen studies were included in the previous systematic review. PPI is realized through two main strategies: (i) patients and public members participate directly in decision-making processes (participation) and (ii) patients or public perspectives are solicited to inform decisions (consultation or indirect participation). This review synthesizes the barriers and facilitators to PPI in HTA, and a framework to assess its impact is proposed. Conclusion The number of studies on patients or public involvement in HTA has dramatically increased in recent years. Findings from this updated systematic review show that PPI is done mostly through consultation and that direct involvement is less frequent. Several barriers to PPI in HTA exist, notably the lack of information to patients and public about HTA and the lack of guidance and policies to support PPI in HTA.

show abstract

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc.). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

show abstract

Contribution of Stakeholder Engagement to the Impact of a Health Technology Assessment: An Irish Case Study

Cited by 23 publications

References 5 publications

Insights From the Front Lines: A Collection of Stories of Hta Impact From Inahta Member Agencies

Insights From the Front Lines: A Collection of Stories of Hta Impact From Inahta Member Agencies

Patient and public involvement in health technology assessment: update of a systematic review of international experiences

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About