Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2014

Open Access 01-12-2014 | Study protocol

Involving patient in the early stages of health technology assessment (HTA): a study protocol

Authors: Marie-Pierre Gagnon, Bernard Candas, Marie Desmartis, Johanne Gagnon, Daniel La Roche, Marc Rhainds, Martin Coulombe, Mylène Tantchou Dipankui, France Légaré

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Public and patient involvement in the different stages of the health technology assessment (HTA) process is increasingly encouraged. The selection of topics for assessment, which includes identifying and prioritizing HTA questions, is a constant challenge for HTA agencies because the number of technologies requiring an assessment exceeds the resources available. Public and patient involvement in these early stages of HTA could make assessments more relevant and acceptable to them. Involving them in the development of the assessment plan is also crucial to optimize their influence and impact on HTA research. The project objectives are: 1) setting up interventions to promote patient participation in three stages of the HTA process: identification of HTA topics, prioritization, and development of the assessment plan of the topic prioritized; and 2) assessing the impact of patient participation on the relevance of the topics suggested, the prioritization process, and the assessment plan from the point of view of patients and other groups involved in HTA.

Methods

Patients and their representatives living in the catchment area of the HTA Roundtable of Université Laval’s Integrated University Health Network (covering six health regions of the Province of Quebec, Canada) will be involved in the following HTA activities: 1) identification of potential HTA topics in the field of cancer; 2) revision of vignettes developed to inform the prioritization of topics; 3) participation in deliberation sessions for prioritizing HTA topics; and 4) development of the assessment plan of the topic prioritized. The research team will coordinate the implementation of these activities and will evaluate the process and outcomes of patient involvement through semi-structured interviews with representatives of the different stakeholder groups, structured observations, and document analysis, mainly involving the comparison of votes and topics suggested by various stakeholder groups.

Discussion

This project is designed as an integrated approach to knowledge translation and will be conducted through a close collaboration between researchers and knowledge users at all stages of the project. In response to the needs expressed by HTA producers, the knowledge produced will be directly useful in guiding practices regarding patient involvement in the early phases of HTA.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Wallerstein N, Duran B: Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: the intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. Am J Public Health. 2010, 100 (Suppl 1): S40-S46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wallerstein N, Duran B: Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: the intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. Am J Public Health. 2010, 100 (Suppl 1): S40-S46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
go back to reference Wright D, Corner J, Hopkinson J, Foster C: Listening to the views of people affected by cancer about cancer research: an example of participatory research in setting the cancer research agenda. Health Expect. 2006, 9 (1): 3-12.CrossRefPubMed Wright D, Corner J, Hopkinson J, Foster C: Listening to the views of people affected by cancer about cancer research: an example of participatory research in setting the cancer research agenda. Health Expect. 2006, 9 (1): 3-12.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Bridges JF, Jones C: Patient-based health technology assessment: A vision of the future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007, 23 (1): 30-35.CrossRefPubMed Bridges JF, Jones C: Patient-based health technology assessment: A vision of the future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007, 23 (1): 30-35.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Coulter A: Perspectives on health technology assessment: response from the patient’s perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004, 20 (1): 92-96.CrossRefPubMed Coulter A: Perspectives on health technology assessment: response from the patient’s perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004, 20 (1): 92-96.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J, Hansen HP, Lo Scalzo A, Mossman J, Single A: Patients’ perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010, 26 (3): 334-340.CrossRefPubMed Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J, Hansen HP, Lo Scalzo A, Mossman J, Single A: Patients’ perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010, 26 (3): 334-340.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Lehoux P, Williams-Jones B: Mapping the integration of social and ethical issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007, 23 (01): 9-16.CrossRefPubMed Lehoux P, Williams-Jones B: Mapping the integration of social and ethical issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007, 23 (01): 9-16.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Pivik J, Rode E, Ward C: A consumer involvement model for health technology assessment in Canada. Health Policy. 2004, 69 (2): 253-268.CrossRefPubMed Pivik J, Rode E, Ward C: A consumer involvement model for health technology assessment in Canada. Health Policy. 2004, 69 (2): 253-268.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Health Equality Europe: Understanding Health Technology Assessement (HTA). HEA Guide to HTA for Patients. 2008, 48. Health Equality Europe: Understanding Health Technology Assessement (HTA). HEA Guide to HTA for Patients. 2008, 48.
10.
go back to reference Menon D, Stafinski T: Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011, 11 (1): 75-89.CrossRefPubMed Menon D, Stafinski T: Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011, 11 (1): 75-89.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Noorani HZ, Husereau DR, Boudreau R, Skidmore B: Priority setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of current practical approaches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007, 23 (3): 310-315.CrossRefPubMed Noorani HZ, Husereau DR, Boudreau R, Skidmore B: Priority setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of current practical approaches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007, 23 (3): 310-315.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Corner J, Wright D, Hopkinson J, Gunaratnam Y, McDonald JW, Foster C: The research priorities of patients attending UK cancer treatment centres: findings from a modified nominal group study. Br J Cancer. 2007, 96 (6): 875-881.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Corner J, Wright D, Hopkinson J, Gunaratnam Y, McDonald JW, Foster C: The research priorities of patients attending UK cancer treatment centres: findings from a modified nominal group study. Br J Cancer. 2007, 96 (6): 875-881.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
go back to reference Jenks S: The public applauds cancer research but not how research priorities are set. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997, 89 (5): 350-351.CrossRefPubMed Jenks S: The public applauds cancer research but not how research priorities are set. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997, 89 (5): 350-351.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Staley K: Exploring impact: Public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. 2009, Eastleigh: INVOLVE Staley K: Exploring impact: Public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. 2009, Eastleigh: INVOLVE
15.
go back to reference Tallon D, Chard J, Dieppe P: Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer. Lancet. 2000, 355 (9220): 2037-2040.CrossRefPubMed Tallon D, Chard J, Dieppe P: Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer. Lancet. 2000, 355 (9220): 2037-2040.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Caron-Flinterman JF, Broerse JE, Teerling J, Bunders JF: Patients’ priorities concerning health research: the case of asthma and COPD research in the Netherlands. Health Expect. 2005, 8 (3): 253-263.CrossRefPubMed Caron-Flinterman JF, Broerse JE, Teerling J, Bunders JF: Patients’ priorities concerning health research: the case of asthma and COPD research in the Netherlands. Health Expect. 2005, 8 (3): 253-263.CrossRefPubMed
17.
18.
go back to reference Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Seers K, Herron-Marx S, Bayliss H: The PIRICOM Study:A systematic review of the conceptualisation, measurement, impact and outcomes of patients and public involvement in health and social care research. 2009, United Kingdom Clinical Resarch Collaboration: London Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Seers K, Herron-Marx S, Bayliss H: The PIRICOM Study:A systematic review of the conceptualisation, measurement, impact and outcomes of patients and public involvement in health and social care research. 2009, United Kingdom Clinical Resarch Collaboration: London
19.
go back to reference Moran R, Davidson P: An uneven spread: a review of public involvement in the National Institute of Health Research’s Health Technology Assessment program. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011, 27 (4): 343-347.CrossRefPubMed Moran R, Davidson P: An uneven spread: a review of public involvement in the National Institute of Health Research’s Health Technology Assessment program. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011, 27 (4): 343-347.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Husereau D, Boucher M, Noorani H: Priority setting for health technology assessment at CADTH. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010, 26 (3): 341-347.CrossRefPubMed Husereau D, Boucher M, Noorani H: Priority setting for health technology assessment at CADTH. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010, 26 (3): 341-347.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Abelson J, Giacomini M, Lehoux P, Gauvin FP: Bringing ’the public’ into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: from principles to practice. Health Policy. 2007, 82 (1): 37-50.CrossRefPubMed Abelson J, Giacomini M, Lehoux P, Gauvin FP: Bringing ’the public’ into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: from principles to practice. Health Policy. 2007, 82 (1): 37-50.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Oliver S, Clarke-Jones L, Rees R, Milne R, Buchanan P, Gabbay J, Gyte G, Oakley A, Stein K: Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: developing an evidence-based approach. Health Technol Assess. 2004, 8 (15): 1-148. III-IVCrossRefPubMed Oliver S, Clarke-Jones L, Rees R, Milne R, Buchanan P, Gabbay J, Gyte G, Oakley A, Stein K: Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: developing an evidence-based approach. Health Technol Assess. 2004, 8 (15): 1-148. III-IVCrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Royle J, Oliver S: Consumer involvement in the health technology assessment program. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004, 20 (4): 493-497.CrossRefPubMed Royle J, Oliver S: Consumer involvement in the health technology assessment program. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004, 20 (4): 493-497.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Boote J, Baird W, Beecroft C: Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: a narrative review of case examples. Health Policy. 2010, 95 (1): 10-23.CrossRefPubMed Boote J, Baird W, Beecroft C: Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: a narrative review of case examples. Health Policy. 2010, 95 (1): 10-23.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Gagnon M-P, Desmartis M, Gagnon J, St-Pierre M, Gauvin FP, Rhainds M, Lepage-Savary D, Coulombe M, Tantchou Dipankui M, Légaré F: Introducing the patient’s perspective in hospital health technology assessment (HTA): the views of HTA producers, hospital managers, and patients. Health Expect. 2012, doi:10.1111/hex.12010 Gagnon M-P, Desmartis M, Gagnon J, St-Pierre M, Gauvin FP, Rhainds M, Lepage-Savary D, Coulombe M, Tantchou Dipankui M, Légaré F: Introducing the patient’s perspective in hospital health technology assessment (HTA): the views of HTA producers, hospital managers, and patients. Health Expect. 2012, doi:10.1111/hex.12010
30.
go back to reference Staniszewska S, Jones N, Newburn M, Marshall S: User involvement in the development of a research bid: barriers, enablers and impacts. Health Expect. 2007, 10 (2): 173-183.CrossRefPubMed Staniszewska S, Jones N, Newburn M, Marshall S: User involvement in the development of a research bid: barriers, enablers and impacts. Health Expect. 2007, 10 (2): 173-183.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Mitton C, Smith N, Peacock S, Evoy B, Abelson J: Public participation in health care priority setting: A scoping review. Health Policy. 2009, 91 (3): 219-228.CrossRefPubMed Mitton C, Smith N, Peacock S, Evoy B, Abelson J: Public participation in health care priority setting: A scoping review. Health Policy. 2009, 91 (3): 219-228.CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Abelson J, Eyles J, McLeod CB, Collins P, McMullan C, Forest PG: Does deliberation make a difference? Results from a citizens panel study of health goals priority setting. Health Policy. 2003, 66 (1): 95-106.CrossRefPubMed Abelson J, Eyles J, McLeod CB, Collins P, McMullan C, Forest PG: Does deliberation make a difference? Results from a citizens panel study of health goals priority setting. Health Policy. 2003, 66 (1): 95-106.CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Gagnon MP, Gagnon J, St-Pierre M, Gauvin FP, Piron F, Rhainds M, Coulombe M, Lepage-Savary D, Desmartis M, Tantchou Dipankui M, Légaré F: Involving patients in HTA activities at local level: a study protocol based on the collaboration between researchers and knowledge users. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012, 12: 14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Gagnon MP, Gagnon J, St-Pierre M, Gauvin FP, Piron F, Rhainds M, Coulombe M, Lepage-Savary D, Desmartis M, Tantchou Dipankui M, Légaré F: Involving patients in HTA activities at local level: a study protocol based on the collaboration between researchers and knowledge users. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012, 12: 14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
go back to reference Weiss C: Have We Learned Anything New about the Use of Evaluation?. Am J Eval. 1998, 19 (1): 21-33.CrossRef Weiss C: Have We Learned Anything New about the Use of Evaluation?. Am J Eval. 1998, 19 (1): 21-33.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Guba EG, Lincoln YS: Fourth Generation Evaluation. 1989, Newbury Park: Sage Guba EG, Lincoln YS: Fourth Generation Evaluation. 1989, Newbury Park: Sage
37.
go back to reference Patton M: Utilization-focused Evaluation. 2008, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 4 Patton M: Utilization-focused Evaluation. 2008, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 4
38.
go back to reference White MA, Verhoef MJ: Toward a patient-centered approach: incorporating principles of participatory action research into clinical studies. Integr Cancer Ther. 2005, 4 (1): 21-24.CrossRefPubMed White MA, Verhoef MJ: Toward a patient-centered approach: incorporating principles of participatory action research into clinical studies. Integr Cancer Ther. 2005, 4 (1): 21-24.CrossRefPubMed
39.
go back to reference Service du développement de l’information: Les régions sociosanitaires québécoises regroupées. 2008, Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux du Québec, vol. http://www.msss.gouv.qc.ca. MSSS, SDI, février 2008 Service du développement de l’information: Les régions sociosanitaires québécoises regroupées. 2008, Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux du Québec, vol. http://​www.​msss.​gouv.​qc.​ca. MSSS, SDI, février 2008
40.
go back to reference Oliver S, Armes DG, Gyte G: Public involvement in setting a national research agenda: a mixed methods evaluation. Patient. 2009, 2 (3): 179-190.CrossRefPubMed Oliver S, Armes DG, Gyte G: Public involvement in setting a national research agenda: a mixed methods evaluation. Patient. 2009, 2 (3): 179-190.CrossRefPubMed
41.
go back to reference Johanson R, Rigby C, Newburn M, Stewart M, Jones P: Suggestions in maternal and child health for the National Technology Assessment Programme: a consideration of consumer and professional priorities. J R Soc Promot Health. 2002, 122 (1): 50-54.CrossRefPubMed Johanson R, Rigby C, Newburn M, Stewart M, Jones P: Suggestions in maternal and child health for the National Technology Assessment Programme: a consideration of consumer and professional priorities. J R Soc Promot Health. 2002, 122 (1): 50-54.CrossRefPubMed
42.
go back to reference Oliver S, Armes D, Gyte G: Evaluation of public influence on the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. Social Science Research Uni. 2006, University of London: Institute of Education Oliver S, Armes D, Gyte G: Evaluation of public influence on the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. Social Science Research Uni. 2006, University of London: Institute of Education
43.
go back to reference Innvaer S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A: Health policy-makers’ perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002, 7 (4): 239-244.CrossRefPubMed Innvaer S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A: Health policy-makers’ perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002, 7 (4): 239-244.CrossRefPubMed
45.
go back to reference Preskill H, Compton DW, Baizerman M, Smith IE: Integrating theory and practice. Conceptual frameworks of the CEFP. Cancer Pract. 2001, 9 (Suppl 1): S17-S22.PubMed Preskill H, Compton DW, Baizerman M, Smith IE: Integrating theory and practice. Conceptual frameworks of the CEFP. Cancer Pract. 2001, 9 (Suppl 1): S17-S22.PubMed
46.
go back to reference Rowe G, Frewer L: Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Sci Technol Hum Val. 2000, 25 (1): 3-29.CrossRef Rowe G, Frewer L: Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Sci Technol Hum Val. 2000, 25 (1): 3-29.CrossRef
47.
go back to reference Rowe G, Horlick-Jones T, Walls J, Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF: Analysis of a normative framework for evaluating public engagement exercises: reliability, validity and limitations. Public Underst Sci. 2008, 17 (4): 419-441.CrossRef Rowe G, Horlick-Jones T, Walls J, Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF: Analysis of a normative framework for evaluating public engagement exercises: reliability, validity and limitations. Public Underst Sci. 2008, 17 (4): 419-441.CrossRef
48.
go back to reference Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, Robinson N: Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map?. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006, 26 (1): 13-24.CrossRefPubMed Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, Robinson N: Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map?. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006, 26 (1): 13-24.CrossRefPubMed
49.
go back to reference Gagliardi AR, Lemieux-Charles L, Brown AD, Sullivan T, Goel V: Barriers to patient involvement in health service planning and evaluation: an exploratory study. Patient Educ Couns. 2008, 70 (2): 234-241.CrossRefPubMed Gagliardi AR, Lemieux-Charles L, Brown AD, Sullivan T, Goel V: Barriers to patient involvement in health service planning and evaluation: an exploratory study. Patient Educ Couns. 2008, 70 (2): 234-241.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Involving patient in the early stages of health technology assessment (HTA): a study protocol
Authors
Marie-Pierre Gagnon
Bernard Candas
Marie Desmartis
Johanne Gagnon
Daniel La Roche
Marc Rhainds
Martin Coulombe
Mylène Tantchou Dipankui
France Légaré
Publication date
01-12-2014
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2014
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-273

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

BMC Health Services Research 1/2014 Go to the issue