Advanced search
Publication Cover
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Volume 11, 2011 - Issue 1
Submit an article Journal homepage
417
Views
67
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Review

Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions

Devidas Menon School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, T62 2V2, Canada;[email protected]
&
Tania Stafinski School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, T62 2V2, Canada
Pages 75-89 | Published online: 09 Jan 2014

References

  • Feeny D. Diffusion of new health care technologies. Health Care Technology: Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Public Policy. Feeny D, Guyatt G, Tugwell P (Eds). Institute for Research on Public Policy, Montreal, Canada, 24–40 (1986).
  • Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations (4th Edition). Free Press, NY, USA (1995).
  • Culyer AJ. Involving stakeholders in healthcare decisions – the experience of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales. Healthc. Q.8(3), 56–60 (2005).
  • Lenaghan J. Involving the public in rationing decisions. The experience of citizens juries. Health Policy49(1–2), 45–61 (1999).
  • 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 Policy66(1), 95–106 (2003).
  • Oliver SR, Rees RW, Clarke-Jones L et al. A multidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services research. Health Expect11(1), 72–84 (2008).
  • Abelson J, Forest PG, Eyles J, Casebeer A, Martin E, Mackean G. Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment: results from a Canadian comparative study. Soc. Sci. Med.64(10), 2115–2128 (2007).
  • Nutt PC. How decision makers evaluate alternatives and the influence of complexity. Manage. Sci.44(8), 1148–1166 (1998).
  • 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.70(10), 1518–1526 (2010).
  • Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J et al. Patients’ perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care26(3), 334–340 (2010).
  • Coulter A. Perspectives on health technology assessment: response from the patient’s perspective. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care20(1), 92–96 (2004).
  • 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 Care23(3), 310–315 (2007).
  • Bridges JF, Jones C. Patient-based health technology assessment: a vision of the future. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care23(1), 30–35 (2007).
  • Pivik J, Rode E, Ward C. A consumer involvement model for health technology assessment in Canada. Health Policy69(2), 253–268 (2004).
  • Wait S, Nolte E. Public involvement policies in health: exploring their conceptual basis. Health Econ. Policy Law1(Pt 2), 149–162 (2006).
  • Chalkidou K, Tunis S, Lopert R et al. Comparative effectiveness research and evidence-based health policy: experience from four countries. Milbank Q87(2), 339–367 (2009).
  • 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.11(2), 189–200 (2008).
  • Chafe R, Merali F, Laupacis A, Levinson W, Martin D. Does the public think it is reasonable to wait for more evidence before funding innovative health technologies? The case of PET scanning in Ontario. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care26(2), 192–197 (2010).
  • Bilimoria NM. CMS ‘never events’ and other new trends in quality health care standards for hospitals. Health Care Law Mon.2008(12), 2–10 (2008).
  • Hailey D, Nordwall M. Survey on the involvement of consumers in health technology assessment programs. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care22(4), 497–499 (2006).
  • Fattal J, Lehoux P. Health technology assessment use and dissemination by patient and consumer groups: why and how? Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care24(4), 473–480 (2008).
  • Massol J, Puech A, Boissel J-P et al. How to anticipate the assessment of the public health benefit of new medicines? Therapie62(5), 417–435 (2007).
  • Roche T, Brunet V. Medical Devices Evaluation by the HAS in Order to be Reimbursed in France. Roche & Associes, Lyon, France (2009).
  • Orvain J, Xerri B, Matillon Y. Overview of health technology assessment in France. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care20(1), 25–34 (2004).
  • Manning J, Paterson R. ‘Prioritization’: rationing health care in New Zealand. J. Law Med. Ethics33(4), 681–697 (2005).
  • Garner S. How decisions on the use of medicines and medical devices are made. Pharmaceutical J.275(7364), 254–256 (2005).
  • Stolk EA, de Bont A, van Halteren AR, Bijlmer RJ, Poley MJ. Role of health technology assessment in shaping the benefits package in The Netherlands. Expert Rev. Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res.9(1), 85–94 (2009).
  • Fry ST. Nancy Cruzan is allowed to die, but uncertainties remain. Nurs. Outlook39(2), 96 (1991).
  • Berg M, van der Grinten T, Klazinga N. Technology assessment, priority setting, and appropriate care in Dutch health care. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care20(1), 35–43 (2004).
  • Chalkidou K. Comparative effectiveness review within the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Issue Brief (Commonw. Fund)59, 1–12 (2009).
  • Abelson J, Giacomini M, Lehoux P, Gauvin FP. Bringing ‘the public’ into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: from principles to practice. Health Policy82(1), 37–50 (2007).
  • Borowski HZ, Brehaut J, Hailey D. Linking evidence from health technology assessments to policy and decision making: the Alberta model. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care23(2), 155–161 (2007).
  • Levin L, Goeree R, Sikich N et al. Establishing a comprehensive continuum from an evidentiary base to policy development for health technologies: the Ontario experience. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care23(3), 299–309 (2007).

Websites

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.