Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Study protocol

Public preferences for engagement in Health Technology Assessment decision-making: protocol of a mixed methods study

Authors: Sally Wortley, Allison Tong, Emily Lancsar, Glenn Salkeld, Kirsten Howard

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Much attention in recent years has been given to the topic of public engagement in health technology assessment (HTA) decision-making. HTA organizations spend substantial resources and time on undertaking public engagement, and numerous studies have examined challenges and barriers to engagement in the decision-making process however uncertainty remains as to optimal methods to incorporate the views of the public in HTA decision-making. Little research has been done to ascertain whether current engagement processes align with public preferences and to what extent their desire for engagement is dependent on the question being asked by decision-makers or the characteristics of the decision. This study will examine public preferences for engagement in Australian HTA decision-making using an exploratory mixed methods design.

Methods/Design

The aims of this study are to: 1) identify characteristics about HTA decisions that are important to the public in determining whether public engagement should be undertaken on a particular topic, 2) determine which decision characteristics influence public preferences for the extent, or type of public engagement, and 3) describe reasons underpinning these preferences. Focus group participants from the general community, aged 18–70 years, will be purposively sampled from the Australian population to ensure a wide range of demographic groups. Each focus group will include a general discussion on public engagement as well as a ranking exercise using a modified nominal group technique (NGT). The NGT will inform the design of a discrete choice study to quantitatively assess public preferences for engagement in HTA decision-making.

Discussion

The proposed research seeks to investigate under what circumstances and how the public would like their views and preferences to be considered in health technology assessments. HTA organizations regularly make decisions about when and how public engagement should occur but without consideration of the public’s preferences on the method and extent of engagement. This information has the potential to assist decision-makers in tailoring engagement approaches, and may be particularly useful in decisions with potential for conflict where clarification of public values and preferences could strengthen the decision-making process.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Littlejohns P, Weale A, Chalkidou K, Faden R, Teerawattananon Y. Social values and health policy: a new international research programme. J Health Organ Manag. 2012;26:285–92.CrossRefPubMed Littlejohns P, Weale A, Chalkidou K, Faden R, Teerawattananon Y. Social values and health policy: a new international research programme. J Health Organ Manag. 2012;26:285–92.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J, Hansen HP, Lo Scalzo A, Mossman J, et al. Patients’ perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:334–40.CrossRefPubMed Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J, Hansen HP, Lo Scalzo A, Mossman J, et al. Patients’ perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:334–40.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Nilsen ES, Myrhaug HT, Johansen M, Oliver S, Oxman AD. Methods of consumer involvement in developing healthcare policy and research, clinical practice guidelines and patient information material. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;3:1–28. Nilsen ES, Myrhaug HT, Johansen M, Oliver S, Oxman AD. Methods of consumer involvement in developing healthcare policy and research, clinical practice guidelines and patient information material. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;3:1–28.
5.
go back to reference Whitty JA. An international survey of the public engagement practices of health technology assessment organizations. Value Health. 2013;16:155–63.CrossRefPubMed Whitty JA. An international survey of the public engagement practices of health technology assessment organizations. Value Health. 2013;16:155–63.CrossRefPubMed
6.
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;91:219–28.CrossRefPubMed Mitton C, Smith N, Peacock S, Evoy B, Abelson J. Public participation in health care priority setting: a scoping review. Health Policy. 2009;91:219–28.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Arnstein S. A ladder of citizen participation. LeGates, Richard T; Stout, Frederic Frederic, Stout (Hrsg). The City Reader 5th Edition New York: Routledge; 2011. p. 238–50. Arnstein S. A ladder of citizen participation. LeGates, Richard T; Stout, Frederic Frederic, Stout (Hrsg). The City Reader 5th Edition New York: Routledge; 2011. p. 238–50.
8.
go back to reference Rowe G, Frewer LJ. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2005;30:251–90.CrossRef Rowe G, Frewer LJ. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2005;30:251–90.CrossRef
9.
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;11:75–89.CrossRefPubMed Menon D, Stafinski T. Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11:75–89.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Nabatchi T. Putting the 'public' back in public values research: designing participation to identify and respond to values. Public Adm Rev. 2012;72:699–708. Nabatchi T. Putting the 'public' back in public values research: designing participation to identify and respond to values. Public Adm Rev. 2012;72:699–708.
11.
go back to reference Gauvin FP, Abelson J, Giacomini M, Eyles J, Lavis JN. It all depends: Conceptualizing public involvement in the context of health technology assessment agencies. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70:1518–26.CrossRefPubMed Gauvin FP, Abelson J, Giacomini M, Eyles J, Lavis JN. It all depends: Conceptualizing public involvement in the context of health technology assessment agencies. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70:1518–26.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Dobrow MJ, Goel V, Upshur REG. Evidence-based health policy: context and utilisation. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58:207–17.CrossRefPubMed Dobrow MJ, Goel V, Upshur REG. Evidence-based health policy: context and utilisation. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58:207–17.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Stafinski T, Menon D, McCabe C, Philippon DJ. To fund or not to fund. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29:771–80.CrossRefPubMed Stafinski T, Menon D, McCabe C, Philippon DJ. To fund or not to fund. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29:771–80.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Rychetnik L, Carter SM, Abelson J, Thornton H, Barratt A, Entwistle VA, et al. Enhancing citizen engagement in cancer screening through deliberative democracy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:380–6.CrossRefPubMed Rychetnik L, Carter SM, Abelson J, Thornton H, Barratt A, Entwistle VA, et al. Enhancing citizen engagement in cancer screening through deliberative democracy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:380–6.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Watt AM, Hiller JE, Braunack-Mayer AJ, Moss JR, Buchan H, Wale J, et al. The ASTUTE Health study protocol: Deliberative stakeholder engagements to inform implementation approaches to healthcare disinvestment. Implement Sci. 2012;7:101. Watt AM, Hiller JE, Braunack-Mayer AJ, Moss JR, Buchan H, Wale J, et al. The ASTUTE Health study protocol: Deliberative stakeholder engagements to inform implementation approaches to healthcare disinvestment. Implement Sci. 2012;7:101.
16.
go back to reference Street JM, Braunack-Mayer AJ, Facey K, Ashcroft RE, Hiller JE. Virtual community consultation? Using the literature and weblogs to link community perspectives and health technology assessment. Health Expect. 2008;11:189–200. Street JM, Braunack-Mayer AJ, Facey K, Ashcroft RE, Hiller JE. Virtual community consultation? Using the literature and weblogs to link community perspectives and health technology assessment. Health Expect. 2008;11:189–200.
17.
go back to reference Messina MJ, Grainger DL. A pilot study to identify areas for further improvements in patient and public involvement in health technology assessments for medicines. The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. 2012;5:199–211. Messina MJ, Grainger DL. A pilot study to identify areas for further improvements in patient and public involvement in health technology assessments for medicines. The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. 2012;5:199–211.
18.
go back to reference Lomas J. Reluctant rationers: public input to health care priorities. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1997;2:103–11.PubMed Lomas J. Reluctant rationers: public input to health care priorities. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1997;2:103–11.PubMed
19.
go back to reference Litva A, Coast J, Donovan J, Eyles J, Shepherd M, Tacchi J, et al. The public is too subjective: public involvement at different levels of health-care decision making. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54:1825–37.CrossRefPubMed Litva A, Coast J, Donovan J, Eyles J, Shepherd M, Tacchi J, et al. The public is too subjective: public involvement at different levels of health-care decision making. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54:1825–37.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Lehoux P, Daudelin G, Demers-Payette O, Boivin A. Fostering deliberations about health innovation: What do we want to know from publics? Soc Sci Med. 2009;68:2002–9.CrossRefPubMed Lehoux P, Daudelin G, Demers-Payette O, Boivin A. Fostering deliberations about health innovation: What do we want to know from publics? Soc Sci Med. 2009;68:2002–9.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Stafinski T, Menon D, Marshall D, Caulfield T. Societal Values in the Allocation of Healthcare Resources. The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. 2011;4:207–25.CrossRef Stafinski T, Menon D, Marshall D, Caulfield T. Societal Values in the Allocation of Healthcare Resources. The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. 2011;4:207–25.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Sarrami-Foroushani P, Travaglia J, Debono D, Braithwaite J. Key concepts in consumer and community engagement: a scoping meta-review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:250.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Sarrami-Foroushani P, Travaglia J, Debono D, Braithwaite J. Key concepts in consumer and community engagement: a scoping meta-review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:250.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
24.
go back to reference Howard K, Jan S, Rose J, Chadban S, Allen RD, Irving M, et al. Community Preferences for the Allocation & Donation of Organs-The PAraDOx Study. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:386.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Howard K, Jan S, Rose J, Chadban S, Allen RD, Irving M, et al. Community Preferences for the Allocation & Donation of Organs-The PAraDOx Study. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:386.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
go back to reference Cantrill JA, Sibbald B, Buetow S. The Delphi and nominal group techniques in health services research. Int J Pharm Pract. 1996;4:67–74.CrossRef Cantrill JA, Sibbald B, Buetow S. The Delphi and nominal group techniques in health services research. Int J Pharm Pract. 1996;4:67–74.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Hiligsmann M, van Durme C, Geusens P, Dellaert BG, Dirksen CD, van der Weijden T, et al. Nominal group technique to select attributes for discrete choice experiments: an example for drug treatment choice in osteoporosis. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2012;7:133–9. Hiligsmann M, van Durme C, Geusens P, Dellaert BG, Dirksen CD, van der Weijden T, et al. Nominal group technique to select attributes for discrete choice experiments: an example for drug treatment choice in osteoporosis. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2012;7:133–9.
27.
go back to reference Scuffham PA, Ratcliffe J, Kendall E, Burton P, Wilson A, Chalkidou K, et al. Engaging the public in healthcare decision-making: quantifying preferences for healthcare through citizens juries. BMJ open. 2014;4:e005437.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Scuffham PA, Ratcliffe J, Kendall E, Burton P, Wilson A, Chalkidou K, et al. Engaging the public in healthcare decision-making: quantifying preferences for healthcare through citizens juries. BMJ open. 2014;4:e005437.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
go back to reference Lancaster KJ. A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ. 1966;74:132–57.CrossRef Lancaster KJ. A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ. 1966;74:132–57.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Ryan M, Kolstad J, Rockers P, Dolea C. How to conduct a discrete choice experiment for health workforce recruitment and retention in remote and rural areas: a user guide with case studies. World Bank: World Health Organization & CapacityPlus; 2012. Ryan M, Kolstad J, Rockers P, Dolea C. How to conduct a discrete choice experiment for health workforce recruitment and retention in remote and rural areas: a user guide with case studies. World Bank: World Health Organization & CapacityPlus; 2012.
30.
go back to reference Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:661–77.CrossRefPubMed Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:661–77.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Coast J, Al-Janabi H, Sutton EJ, Horrocks SA, Vosper AJ, Swancutt DR, et al. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Econ. 2012;21:730–41. Coast J, Al-Janabi H, Sutton EJ, Horrocks SA, Vosper AJ, Swancutt DR, et al. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Econ. 2012;21:730–41.
32.
go back to reference Lancsar E, Swait J. Reconceptualising the External Validity of Discrete Choice Experiments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32:1–15.CrossRef Lancsar E, Swait J. Reconceptualising the External Validity of Discrete Choice Experiments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32:1–15.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Guindo LA, Wagner M, Baltussen R, Rindress D, van Til J, Kind P, et al. From efficacy to equity: Literature review of decision criteria for resource allocation and healthcare decisionmaking. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2012;10:9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Guindo LA, Wagner M, Baltussen R, Rindress D, van Til J, Kind P, et al. From efficacy to equity: Literature review of decision criteria for resource allocation and healthcare decisionmaking. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2012;10:9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
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;96:875–81.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;96:875–81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
go back to reference Thompson SC, Pitts JS, Schwankovsky L. Preferences for involvement in medical decision-making: situational and demographic influences. Patient Educ Couns. 1993;22:133–40.CrossRefPubMed Thompson SC, Pitts JS, Schwankovsky L. Preferences for involvement in medical decision-making: situational and demographic influences. Patient Educ Couns. 1993;22:133–40.CrossRefPubMed
36.
go back to reference Say R, Murtagh M, Thomson R. Patients preference for involvement in medical decision making: a narrative review. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;60:102–14.CrossRefPubMed Say R, Murtagh M, Thomson R. Patients preference for involvement in medical decision making: a narrative review. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;60:102–14.CrossRefPubMed
37.
go back to reference Teddlie C, Yu F. Mixed methods sampling a typology with examples. J Mix Methods Res. 2007;1:77–100. Teddlie C, Yu F. Mixed methods sampling a typology with examples. J Mix Methods Res. 2007;1:77–100.
38.
go back to reference Gordon L, Comans T, Scuffham PA. MRI for small bowel Crohn’s disease and fistulising perianal Crohn’s disease. Canberra; 2013 Gordon L, Comans T, Scuffham PA. MRI for small bowel Crohn’s disease and fistulising perianal Crohn’s disease. Canberra; 2013
39.
go back to reference Hoggan B, Cronin P, Camerson A, Goodall S. Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy (HBOT) for the Treatment of Chronic Non-Diabetic Wounds and Non-Neurological Soft Tissue Radiation Injuries. Canberra; 2011 Hoggan B, Cronin P, Camerson A, Goodall S. Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy (HBOT) for the Treatment of Chronic Non-Diabetic Wounds and Non-Neurological Soft Tissue Radiation Injuries. Canberra; 2011
42.
go back to reference Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.CrossRef Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.CrossRef
43.
go back to reference McMillan SS, Kelly F, Sav A, Kendall E, King MA, Whitty JA, et al. Using the Nominal Group Technique: how to analyse across multiple groups. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2014;14(3):1–17.CrossRef McMillan SS, Kelly F, Sav A, Kendall E, King MA, Whitty JA, et al. Using the Nominal Group Technique: how to analyse across multiple groups. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2014;14(3):1–17.CrossRef
44.
go back to reference McMillan SS, Kelly F, Sav A, Kendall E, King MA, Whitty JA, et al. Using the Nominal Group Technique: how to analyse across multiple groups. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2014;14:92–108.CrossRef McMillan SS, Kelly F, Sav A, Kendall E, King MA, Whitty JA, et al. Using the Nominal Group Technique: how to analyse across multiple groups. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2014;14:92–108.CrossRef
45.
go back to reference Rose JM, Bliemer MC. Constructing efficient stated choice experimental designs. Transp Rev. 2009;29:587–617.CrossRef Rose JM, Bliemer MC. Constructing efficient stated choice experimental designs. Transp Rev. 2009;29:587–617.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Public preferences for engagement in Health Technology Assessment decision-making: protocol of a mixed methods study
Authors
Sally Wortley
Allison Tong
Emily Lancsar
Glenn Salkeld
Kirsten Howard
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-015-0176-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2015 Go to the issue