EXPERIENCE OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES IN INVOLVING THE POPULATION OR PATIENTS IN THE PROCESS OF ASSESSING HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES
Introduction: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is an interdisciplinary process, the aim is to inform decision-makers to build a fair, efficient and high quality health care system. In an ideal setting, HTA with patient involvement will enhance patient knowledge by providing access to information and fostering informed dialogue between patients and their healthcare providers.
Aim: review the literature on the role of patients and the public in health technology assessment.
Search strategy: Literature searches were conducted in databases such as PubMed, Cochrane Reviews of Database Systems, Google Scholar. Methodological filters were not used to limit searches by study type. The search was limited to research documents in English and Russian languages published between January 2011 and January 2021. The search words included "assessment of medical technology", "role of patients and society", "value of patients", "evidence and feedback fr om interested parties". There were analyzed publications and used 43 full-text documents in the literature review on the selected authors on the topic.
Results: An HTA process that includes patient input can add value to patients, individual policy-makers and health professionals. A positive dynamic is the active participation and involvement of patient-centered groups in different countries such as Australia, Scotland, Canada. Despite calls for significant patient involvement in HTA, patient involvement and levels of patient support continue to vary widely across Europe, wh ere the main barriers are lack of adequate financial support, inadequate training and low awareness of existing participation opportunities.
Conclusion: Over the past decade, the participation and involvement of a patient-oriented group in HTA has attracted more stakeholders, both from the patients themselves and from decision-makers, but there is no single model for their involvement in the HTA process. The involvement and role of patients in HTA depends on the local structure of the health care system. The lack of regulatory documents, as well as of a structural, procedural or methodological nature is the main barrier to the integration of patients into HTA.
Lyazzat A. Kulembekova 1, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0237-1975
Lyazzat K. Kosherbaeva 1, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8376-4345
Shattyk Ye. Toleugali 1, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6496-6849
Kamshat A. Tolganbaeva 1, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2388-7110
Damir M. Tolepbek 1, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5379-6223
1 S.D. Asfendiarov Kazakh National Medical University, Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan;
1. Abelson J., Bombard Y., Gauvin F.P., Simeonov D., Boesveld S. Assessing the impacts of citizen deliberations on the health technology process. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29 (3): 282–9. (accessed: 28.05.2021)
2. Abelson J., Wagner F., DeJean D., Boesveld S., Gauvin F.P., Bean S., et al. Public and patient involvement in health technology assessment: A framework for action. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2016;32: 256-264 (accessed: 01.04.21)
3. Australian Government Department of Health HTA Consumer Consultative Committee. Health Technology Assessment Consumer Consultative Committee (CCC) Terms of Reference 2019: 17-19 (accessed: 21.05.2021)
4. Boaz A., McKevitt C., Biri D. Rethinking the relationship between science and society: has there been a shift in attitudes to patient and public involvement and public engagement in science in the United Kingdom? Health Expect. 2016;19(3): 592–601. doi: 10.1111/hex.12295 (accessed: 12.05.2021)
5. Brett J., Staniszewska S., Mockford C., Herron-Marx S., Hughes J., Tysall C., et al. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: A systematic review. Health Expect. 2014;17: 637-650. (accessed: 10.04.21)
6. Bridges J.F., Jones C. Patient-based health technology assessment: a vision of the future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007; 23(1): 30–35. (accessed: 21.05.2021)
7. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health (CADTH) Patient and Community Advisory Committee. 2020: 27-29. https://www.cadth.ca/patient-andcommunity-advisory-committee. (дата обращения: 26.05.2021)
8. Cleemput I, Christiaens W., Kohn L., Leonard C., Daue F., Denis A. Acceptability and perceived benefits and risks of public and patient involvement in health care policy: A Delphi survey in Belgian stakeholders. Value Health. 2015;18: 477-483. (accessed: 20.05.21)
9. de Bekker-Grob E.W., Berlin C., Levitan B., Raza K., Christoforidi K., Cleemput I., et al. Giving patients' preferences a voice in medical treatment life cycle: The PREFER public–private project. Patient. 2017;10(3): 263–266. (accessed: 17.05.2021)
10. Dipankui Mylène Tantchou, Gagnon Marie-Pierre, Desmartis Marie, Légaré France, Piron Florence, и другие. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care; Cambridge. Том 31, Изд.3, (2015): 166-170. DOI:10.1017/S0266462315000240 (accessed: 15.05.21)
11. EUPATI Guidance. Patient Involvement in Pharmaceutical Industry-Led Medicines R&D (2016: 36-37). (Accessed November 21, 2016). (accessed: 27.05.21)
12. Facey K.M. Patient involvement in HTA: What added value? Pharmaceuticals Policy and Law. 2011;13: 245–51. (accessed: 20.05.2021)
13. Gagnon M.P., Desmartis M., Lepage-Savary D. et al. Introducing patients’ and the public’s perspectives to health technology assessment: A systematic review of international experiences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(1): 31–42 (accessed: 14.05.2021)
14. Gagnon M., Tantchou Dipankui M., Poder T. et al. Patient and public involvement in health technology assessment: Update of a systematic review of international experiences. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, (2021). 37(1), E36. doi:10.1017/S0266462321000064 (accessed: 04.05.21)
15. Gauvin F.P., Abelson J., Giacomini M., Eyles J., Lavis J.N. Moving cautiously: Public involvement and the health technology assessment community. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(1):43–9 (accessed: 10.05.2021)
16. Greenhalgh T., Jackson C., Shaw S., Janaiman T. Achieving research impact through cocreation in community-based health services: literature review and case study. Milbank Q. 2016;94(2): 392–429. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12197. (accessed: 16.05.2021)
17. Haerry D., Landgraf C., Warner K., Hunter A., Klingmann I., May M., et al. EUPATI and patients in medicines research and development: guidance for patient involvement in regulatory processes. Front. Med. (2018) 5:230. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2018.00230 (accessed: 17.04.21)
18. Hailey D., Werko S., Bakri R., Cameron A., Gohlen B., Myles S., et al. Involvement of consumers in health technology assessment activities by INAHTA agencies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(1):79–83 (accessed: 22.05.2021)
19. Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi) 2019 Annual Meeting. Germany. About HTAi. 2019: 5-10. https://www.htai2019.org/about/. (accessed: 12.05.2021)
20. Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi) Values and Quality Standards for Patient Involvement in HTA. Report, HTAi (2014). HTAi Interest Sub-Group for Patient/Citizen Involvement in HTA. June 2014 (accessed: 25.05.2021)
21. Health technology assessment: An introduction to objectives, role of evidence, and structure in Europe. Marcial Velasco-Garrido Reinhard Busse. World Health Organization 2005, on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies: 2-7. https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/90432/E87866.pdf (accessed: 02.05.2021)
22. HTA Glossary. http://htaglossary.net/health1technology (accessed: 15.04.2021)
23. Hunter A., Facey K., Thomas V., et al. EUPATI Guidance for Patient Involvement in Medicines Research and Development: Health Technology Assessment. Front Med (Lausanne). 2018;5:231. Published 2018 Sep 6. doi:10.3389/fmed.2018.00231 (accessed: 10.04.2021)
24. Klingmann I., Heckenberg A., Warner K., Haerry D., Hunter A., May M., See W. EUPATI and Patients in Medicines Research and Development: Guidance for Patient Involvement in Ethical Review of Clinical Trials. Front. Med. 2018. 5:251. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2018.00251 (accessed: 15.04.2021)
25. Kok M., Gyapong J., Wolffers I. et al. Which health research gets used and why? An empirical analysis of 30 cases. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016;14:36. doi: 10.1186/s12961-016-0107-2 (accessed: 12.05.2021)
26. Kristensen F.B., Nielsen C.P., Panteli D. Regulating the input – Health Technology Assessment. In: Busse R, Klazinga N, Panteli D, et al., editors. Improving healthcare quality in Europe: Characteristics, effectiveness and implementation of different strategies [Internet]. Copenhagen (Denmark): European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2019: 334-43 (Health Policy Series, No. 53.) 6.: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK549272/ (accessed: 12.05.2021)
27. Lopes E., Street J., Carter D., Merlin T. Involving patients in health technology funding decisions: Stakeholder perspectives on processes used in Australia. Health Expect. 2016;19: 331-344. (accessed: 15.05.21)
28. Marsh K., Caro J.J., Zaiser E., Heywood J., Hamed A. Patient-centered decision making: lessons from multi-criteria decision analysis for quantifying patient preferences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2018;34(1): 105–110 (accessed: 12.05.2021)
29. Menon D., Stafinski T. Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11: 75-89. (accessed: 01.05.21)
30. Moran R., Davidson P. An uneven spread: A review of public involvement in the National Institute of Health Research's Health Technology Assessment program. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2011. 27(4), 343-347. doi:10.1017/S0266462311000559 (accessed: 18.04.21)
31. Parsons S., Starling B., Mullan-Jensen C., et al. What do pharmaceutical industry professionals in Europe believe about involving patients and the public in research and development of medicines? A qualitative interview study. BMJ Open 2016;6:e008928. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015008928 (accessed: 29.04.21)
32. Revised framework for interaction between the European Medicines Agency and patients and consumers and their organisations EMA/637573/2014: 10-15 (accessed: 23.05.2021)
33. Rowland P., McMillan S., McGillicuddy P., Richards J. What is “the patient perspective” in patient engagement programs? Implicit logics and parallels to feminist theories. April 2016 Health 21(1): 1-17 DOI:10.1177/1363459316644494 (accessed: 12.05.2021)
34. Scott A.M., Wale J.L. HTAi Patient and Citizen Involvement in HTA Interest Group, Patient Involvement and Education Working Group. Patient advocate perspectives on involvement in HTA: an international snapshot. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3:2. Published 2017 Jan 10. doi:10.1186/s40900-016-0052-9 (accessed: 12.05.2021)
35. Scott A.M. et al. Patient advocate perspectives on involvement in HTA: an international snapshot. Research involvement and engagement vol. 3 2. 10 Jan. 2017, doi:10.1186/s40900-016-0052-9 (accessed: 12.05.2021)
36. Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) Public Involvement Network Advisory Group. 2020: 23-5 Accessed Dec 2020. (accessed: 01.06.2021)
37. Wale J., Scott A.M., Hofmann B., Garner S., Low E., Sansom L. Why patients should be involved in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017 Jan;33(1):1-4. doi: 10.1017/S0266462317000241. (accessed: 12.05.2021)
38. Wale J.L., Thomas S., Hamerlijnck D., Hollander R. Patients and public are important stakeholders in health technology assessment but the level of involvement is low - a call to action. Res Involv Engagem. 2021 Jan 5;7(1):1. doi: 10.1186/s40900-020-00248-9. (accessed: 12.05.2021)
39. Weeks L., Polisena J., Scott A.M., Holtorf A.P. Evaluation of patient and public involvement initiatives in health technology assessment: a survey of international agencies. Int J Tecnol Assess Health Care (2017) 33:715–23. doi: 10.1017/S0266462317000976 (accessed: 05.06.21)
40. Whitty J.A. An international survey of the public engagement practices of health technology assessment organizations. Value Health. 2013;16(1):155–63. (accessed: 12.05.2021)
41. World Health Organization (WHO), 2015 Global Survey on Health Technology Assessment by National Authorities. 2015:8-17 (accessed: 12.05.2021)
42. Yazdizadeh Bahareh, Shahmoradi Safoura, Majdzadeh Reza, Doaee Shila, Bazyar Mohammad, и др. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care; Cambridge. Том 32, Изд. 3, (2016): 181-189. DOI:10.1017/S0266462316000167 (accessed: 06.06.21)
43. Lishcuk O. Tsennostno-orientirovannaya otsenka meditsinskikh tekhnologii [Value Based Assessment of Medical Technology] / «Remedium» 2014 noyabr'. 67-69 (accessed: 27.05.21) [in Russian].
Number of Views: 153
Category of articles:
Reviews
Bibliography link
Kulembekova L.A., Kosherbaeva L.K., Toleugali Sh.Ye., Tolganbaeva K.A., Tolepbek D.M. Experience of foreign countries in involving the population or patients in the process of assessing health technologies // Nauka i Zdravookhranenie [Science & Healthcare]. 2021, (Vol.23) 4, pp. 98-106. doi 10.34689/SH.2021.23.4.010Related publications:
INTERRELATION OF INTRAABDOMINAL HYPERTENSION AND MARKERS OF GASTROINTESTINAL TRACT INJURY IN PATIENTS WITH MULTIORGAN DYSFUNCTION
DRUG-INDUCED LIVER INJURY AND GENDER DIFFERENCES
QUALITY OF LIFE IN PRIMARY BILIARY CHOLANGITIS AND ITS ASSESSMENT
DIAGNOSTIC AND THERAPEUTIC LAPAROSCOPY FOR ABDOMINAL INJURIES. REVIEW
METHODS FOR SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN NUTRITIONAL STATUS ASSESSMENT: FOCUS ON ANTHROPOMETRIC PARAMETERS. A REVIEW.